[ClearCase_guy]

"there are lots of people who appear to believe in an alternative theory for life's origins."

It's not obvisous to me if the editor of the TV program is a believer in evolution or not.In any case, it's unfortunate that he tags evolution as an theory of "life's origins".

I find evolution to take more faith than I can muster.

And as to the separate issue of the origin of life, a closed physical system seems utterly incapable of producing life from nothing. IMO, you have to introduce something from outside to account for it.

[maro]

It takes a lot of "education" to swallow evolution in toto. I myself find descent wholly believable in light of our understanding of DNA, but the idea of "natural selection" being responsible for all changes in species is absurd without much more in the way of proof.

[Dimensio]

And as to the separate issue of the origin of life, a closed physical system seems utterly incapable of producing life from nothing. To what closed physical system do you refer?

[munin]

Finally someone that think like me.
Evolution is just a word describing change and seem to me to have nothing to do with the origin of life, but might have affected it afterward, intelligent design seems to require a creator, so how is ID different from Creationism?
Are we talking about the beginning of all life on earth?
or are we just talking about the origin of Homosapien?
I am confused, seems to me there are at least two different issues here, can someone please set me straight?
This is a very important question that has bothered me for most of my life