[stremba]

And evolution has what exactly to do with the origins of life and the universe? It has no more to do with the origins of life and the universe than meteorology has to do with the origins of the atmosphere and the water vapor in it. Again, let's at least debate the same ideas.

[Wallace T.]

Unguided, random evolution presumes that all things in nature, including the origin of life, are explainable through natural processes that may be measured or at least positively identified. There is no need for the intervention of a intelligent designer. An advocate of such a position, when reaching an area that he cannot solve, considers it a "black box" that future scientists may unravel. For example, Darwin developed his theory of the evolution of species prior to present day knowledge of genetic theory. The mechanism of evolution was not known to him and was a mystery. Since his day, evolutionists believe they have solved at least some of that mystery.

The advocate of such a position basically does not need the existence of God to explain the origins of the universe. If God exists, he would be an even more detached being than the "watchmaker" god of Deists like Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. For someone who is an atheist, a skeptic, or a believer in a supernatural being who is less than omniscient or all powerful, the evolutionary process and an old earth and old universe are necessary elements for his cosmology.

OTOH, a theist, one who believes in an all-powerful and omniscient God, would believe that this being would not control the development of the universe through whatever mechanism he chooses: fiat creation, intelligent design, or guidance of the evolutionary process.

The position held by mainstream science, that of random, unguided evolution, reflects the philosophies of naturalism and materialism. Because of these presuppositions, the position does directly address the origins of life and the universe. It is also in conflict with any theistic system.