That is such a stunning contradiction of their position that they have started saying, as Mohler points out in this article, that evolution doesn't speak to biogenesis. I have shown from textbooks used years ago, that evolution certainly did tie the "sea of protein soup with the lightning bolt" to the first cell. I, for one, was raised on those textbooks and those explanations.
That became so obviously untenable that they discarded it, and then pretended it was never said by them in the first place.
Since they also don't allow appeal to a Creator, does anyone know how they explain biogenesis. Is it simply "dust to cell" at this point....with an occasional abracadabra?
The theory did state that, as they found in very controlled conditions, an electrical current through the right sequence of molecules at the right time, created the first stages of life... this theory falls apart when applied to the primordial oceans which were not ‘controlled’ but were raging, crashing bodies full of all kinds of elements. The probability was so ridiculously remote, it was described as the probability of getting a functioning 747 were a hurricane to pass through a junkyard.
This is why people in the field have had to go to the Ancient Aliens theory that we were seeded by creatures from another world. Of course, they don’t state this publicly on T.V. because it would embarrass them.
Don’t forget hocus pocus and presto changeo. I saw those same arguments in textbooks.
They shouldn’t be permitted to disavow their foundational argument, the abiogenesis that undergirds their faith.
I mean, if materialism is “settled science,” throw some chemicals together and create a cell. No? Morons.
That became so obviously untenable that they discarded it, and then pretended it was never said by them in the first place.
Unfortunately for them, too many people have better memories than they could wish for and too many people just have too much plain common sense to fall for their trying to divorce it.