God is the source of all truth. That his truth can and has been discovered by magicians, alchemists or astrologers doesn't suprise or disturb me in the least. So to suggest that anyone who is interested in knowing the truth would want astrononmy, chemistry and mathematics thrown out of schools is ridiculous.
Exactly! And the main question to deal with in evolution is not who came up with it, or who advocated it, or who misused it for what purpose, but whether it's true.
Let's each quit calling the other side names, and look at the data.
What is your evidence that life arose by anything other than natural processes operating under natural law?
Let's each quit calling the other side names, and look at the data.
I agree, and I do not like to see the personal attacks, whether it's by 'my' side or the other side.
What is your evidence that life arose by anything other than natural processes operating under natural law?
Well, the first problem I have is with your presupposition of naturalism. It eliminates a possibility, which if it were actually the case, would be rejected out of hand, not because it were not true, but simply on the basis of the presupposition.
[caveat} If life were the result of a unique supernatural origin, it might by definition be impossible to discover it by current scientific methodology]
Second, I subscribe to the principle that life does not come from non-life by any known natural mechanism.
Third, I also believe that anthing that has begun to exist must have a cause; nothing comes from nothing. If something, anything, exists, Something must have always existed. Since being has to be, it is difficult to see how a contingent universe could bring about a state of affairs in which being HAS to be. {In the purely non-theistic universe, the universe is a gigantic cosmic accident, and could just as easily have NOT come to be.)
Fourth, life is composed of massive, specified, complex genetic information. In my view, saying that it is result of purely natural, undirected processes is like saying that the figures on Mount Rushmore were carved by wind erosion. If evolution were true, then there must have been a colossal number of genetic mutations that led to an increase in genetic information, but so far I do not know of any experimental evidence of a specific instance of a random genetic mutation leading to an increase in genetic information. (not grand story-telling about the 'powers' of natural selection; experimental, empirical evidence.)
How's that for starters?
Cordially,