Actually the reason the study of evolution does not include abiogenesis, or any other explanation for the start of life, has been addressed by us many times. The reason science does not include the supernatural has been addressed by us many times. If you missed those explanations, that is unfortunate, but not every thread will contain every explanation.
There is no rule of science that says all hypotheses that make up a theory need to be retained, nor is there a rule that states one science cannot be divided into many to facilitate specific pursuits.
BR: I never claimed that it was; please reread my post, and try to comprehend the message I was trying to convey by taking all of it into context.
All you’re trying to do is miss the point. Evolution is about speciation, not the origin of life. They’re not the same thing.
G: As you point out, Darwin credits the origin of life to a Creator, which ought to make you feel better about the whole thing.
BR: I feel fine about my posistion on the matter. All I am doing is stating 'factual evidence' about what Darwin himself wrote concerning the theory that is frequently discussed on FR. Yet, even though this part of his theory is recorded in Darwin's own book, "The Origin of Species", it is never acknowleged by those of you who claim to be the "experts" in the field of evolutionary insight and defense.
Is your problem that Darwin said he believed in “the Creator,” or that you think creation is part of the theory of evolution? I can’t tell. It seems to me that if Darwin believed in “the Creator,” (his use of the uppercase “C,” is telling, by the way), his theory of evolution should be utterly unobjectionable to upstanding Christians because that would make evolution specifically outside the event of creation.
To sum it up, Darwin’s passing remarks on the Creator don’t make creation part of the theory. He never said it was, and no one else does, either … outside of the group of people who have some agenda that requires evolution to include creation. "Origin" has page numbers, too, are they part of the theory? (That’s a rhetorical question; don’t bother to respond).
BR: How can you arrive at that conclusion after the quote I posted taken directly from the scientist who gave the TOE it's status in the scientific community? Darwin clearly entertained the acceptance of a Creator, as well as life being placed here by the Creator, whether in one form or two.
I’m not impressed; I’ve sampled far too many creationist quote salads to nibble at this one. Darwin mentions “the Creator.” We can infer from this that he believed in God and evolution (which makes him no different from many religious people, btw). What’s amusing about this is when you find Darwin crediting “the Creator,” you take this as evidence not that Darwin was religious, but that the theory of evolution somehow requires the lack of a creator.
BR: And anytime anyone questions posts by pro TOE advocates, we are immediatly labeled as crevos or religious facatics trying to push our agenda.
Do you not realize how weak this makes all of you look in trying to argue your point of view regarding the TOE?
You overstate your case. Off the top of my head, I can think of two posters who consistently (and intelligently) criticize the theory of evolution. Neither is attacked; their arguments are addressed and countered, but they are treated with respect because they make thoughtful points. But you will garner a derogatory label pretty fast if you keep insisting the theory of evolution includes creation. It doesn’t. If you want to be treated with respect, try to understand the theory you’re attempting to critique.
BR: Instead of directly addressing the points raised and giving detailed reasoning of why science has disregarded said certain part/parts of Darwin's original entertained thoughts on the TOE concerning how the things that inhabit this earth came to be, in which he credits it's beginning to a "Creator", it is readily dismissed in the scientific field. All I am asking, as well as a lot of others, is:
Again, Darwin’s musings on the Creator were not and have never been part of the theory. In the passage you quoted, he implies his belief in “the Creator.” You don’t want to accept the plain meaning of his statement.
More generally, science drops any part of any theory, or entire theories, when facts come to light that don’t fit the theory in question. (It’s called “falsification.” For any theory to be considered science, it must be capable of falsification. “If you find “A” then this theory is wrong,” is a general statement of falsification. A theory that can't be faslified isn't scientific). Science, by definition, also excludes any factor for which it cannot test. There is no known test for the supernatural, so the supernatural can’t be part of science.