[Gumlegs]

It does seem odd to me that evolutionists here seem to make a large distinction between that theory and abiogenesis. A true believer in natural process and a disbeliever of divine or supernatural forces should have no problem incorporating that component into the theory, although it certainly has less empirical support.

People who accept the theory of gravitation don't have an explanation for the beginning of matter -- should that be considered a problem for them? The theory of evolution covers speciation. The beginning of life, which presumably occurred before speciation, is outside the theory. It would seem that by avoiding something for which we have no evidence, that evolutionists demonstrate their caution, not the recklessness they're accused of.

[longshadow]

The beginning of life, which presumably occurred before speciation, is outside the theory.

Different phenomona; different processes; different theories. Why is that so difficult for some people to grasp? The processes governing the formation of water molecules is fundamentally different than the processes that govern the dynamics of water; that's why the former falls under Chemical theory, and the latter under Hydrology.

Demanding that the ToE explain the Origin of Life is equivalent to demanding that Hydrology explain where water molecules came from. To do so requires an astounding level of ignorance.

[Monti Cello]

evolutionists demonstrate their caution, not the recklessness they're accused of

That is true, and that stance reflects the best instincts in the discussion....what I had in mind, and should have stated clearly, was the derisive 'spaghetti monster' crowd which seems so delighted in mocking belief of things science can't demonstrate, but insists on leaving origins out of the discussion because it puts the shoe on the other foot in regard to belief with scanty evidence.