Darwinism cannot explain scientifically the origins of life.
Drammach's Post #7:
Darwins TOE does not even attempt to explain the origins of life..I am sure you know that full well, but continue to misrepresent TOE at every opportunity..
Your Post #11:
When advocates of pure TOE can demonstrate repeatedly, under identical conditions, in a variety of locations and times, the competition among complex organic and inorganic compounds leading to viable primitive life, then I will say that TOE absent everthing else is science. Until then, begging to introduce immense spans of time as the deus ex machina of a materialist theory is the same thing as saying "The gods did it!"The inadequacies of TOE as an explanation of origins of life, which seem to be forgotten when it is taught, must be mentioned even as the truths of TOE are explained. Otherwise, education is incomplete and limited by secularist and materialist prejudices and opinion.
Why do you keep harping on the origins of life when evolution talks about change in life? A definition from the web provides a good example: "In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species."
Can you say strawman, boys and girls? I knew you could!
The problem with this debate is that adherents of TOE as the only acceptable curriculum argue that TOE does not teach anything about life's origins, but when someone suggests that something about life's origins should be mentioned in curricula, even if to say that TOE does not explain origins of life, TOE adherents say precisely what you have responded to me: that is not the point of this debate (and they usually do it insultingly, as you have. But I forgive you since I know you must feel threatened).
I have actually plainly stated that TOE does not pretend to explain the origins of life. I do not understand why, on one hand, TOE advocates demand as an imperative the implication of accidental creation of life when teaching TOE, but object so strongly to mere mention of that implication's inadequacy at the same time? Why do you respond so condescendingly to a valid objection to that approach to teaching TOE?
TOE is not without other problems, of course. For example, returning to my objection to pure TOE advocate use of the deus ex machina of vast expanses of time, while one may observe the shift in population numbers of subspecies of moths in London suburbs as an accident of use of high- versus low-emission coal in manufacturies at the turn of the century, and use that as proof of an advantage of one coloring over another vis-a-vis predation, but it does not prove at all the emergence of a new species from an old one or even the survival of one species versus another. In other words, it is just a thoery.
Oh well, I know well that academic egos do not want to be questioned? "Get away from me, boy! Ya bother me!" (with apologies to W.C. Fields)
Regards.
How many times over the past few months on these threads have you used the term "strawman"? LOL It's getting old.