Not true; I know very well that Darwin did not deal with issues of origins at all. That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis.
However, it is also true that many Darwinist scientists cannot resist the idea of abiogenesis, for it is a view that conforms very well with the Darwinist expectation that evolution is a purely natural development that is essentially random in character. Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins -- regardless of the fact that Darwin himself did not consider origins. Therefore their expectation is that the origin bottoms out in the material basis of life, "clever matter" or "clever chemicals" if you wish: This is what abiogenesis states.
You wrote: "All contemporary organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of cumulative evolutionary changes over billions of years. Evolution is thus the source of the vast diversity of life on Earth, including the many extinct species attested to in the fossil record."
I beg to differ. Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time. Do you see the distinction here? Anyhoot, you don't find many non-Darwinists arguing for abiogenesis.
FWIW
You mean he didn't consider "origins" in the/his "Survival of the Fittest" gambit....
O.K.... O.K... maybe Charles Darwin WAS stupid?... I can read tea leaves too.. Jeese..
Course that would make him pretty stupid.. I'm still hung up on that Finch (IN Galapagos) that turned from vegetarian to carnivorous(Charlies book)... I failed to see(at 13 years of age) how that proves anything... except that "life" is very tenacious.. Yet some people see evolution in that.. Evolution like..... one species producing another species kind of evolution.. Who knows.. maybe Darwin was ..ugh!.. mentally challenged..
I have a theory... That when someone goes to a lot of effort to appear "intelligent" in demeanor, clothing, and physical appearance the opposite is true.. call it Hosepipes Law...
Currently I'm batting about @90%(or so) true...
Albert Einstein however was not as dumb as he looked..
But Dawkins seems to be.. I saw him on pBS the other night..
Good point.
Biology textbook writers don't foget to do the origin question. It's usually discussed in the chapter on the origin of life with pictures. I have one in front of me with a chapter called "The Origin and Evolution of Microbial Life: Prokaryotes and Protists" An irresistible topic and carefully placed right beside Mr. ToE. in most textbooks.
So, does abiogenesis have anything to do with this? LiberalGunNut thinks not. Perhaps he would like to explain his meaning. I'm tempted to think that he wants to ignore the question and insist that textbooks do the same.
"That is, the ToE does not consider either genesis or abiogenesis."
Ok great! That's all I'm saying. THere is no need to psychoanalyze scientists who accept evolution (which is the vast vast majority) by saying they can't "resist" the idea of abiogenesis.
"Perhaps they recognize that you cannot say a theory of the evolution of life is truly complete without considering origins"
This is seriously flawed logic. If a prosecutor says, "My Theory is that OJ Simpson killed his wife, based on scientific evidence" is his theory not complete because it doesn't include the birth of OJ Simpson?
The birth of OJ Simpson is absolutely essential to the Theory of OJ Killing Nicole. But only essential as far as he needs to exist in order for the Theory to work. The only way The Theory od OJ Killing Nicole would break down is if OJ didn't exist at ALL. The theory of what happened that faithful night IS complete without addressing the Origins of OJ and NIcole since most sane people stipulate the OJ and NIcole existed.
"I beg to differ. Evolution is not the "source" of the vast diversity of life; it is only the means, the mechanism, or process that facilitates increasing biological diversity in space and time."
If you are saying God used evolution to acheive biological diversity, that is ENTIRELY COMPATIBLE with the Theory of Evolution. I'm glad to see you accept the Theory!
In reading LGN's posts I've noticed a certain lack of care regarding terms and definitions. The flaw goes directly to his misuse of the term "source," which you've highlighted, BB.
It's worth noting that even the "mechanism" of evolution has not been demonstrated conclusively. The ToE is elegant and compelling, and no doubt (to my mind anyway) in large part true, but the abscence of evidence (which is not evidence of abscence, as doctrinaire evolutionists never tire of repeating) for crucial aspects of the theory nonetheless make holes in it which could accomodate the proverbial Mack truck. Until those holes shrink to the size of pinholes by the discovery of repeatable, falsifiable evidence, it will be an essentially partial theory, with restricted explanatory power.
The big question remains: Why is there something rather than nothing? A corollary is: How did the Big Bang create energy, and at least a trilllion trillion trillion kilograms of matter, when we know from the First Law of Thermodynamics that energy cannot be created or destroyed? Despite LGN's protestations, these questions most certainly do relate to ToE, and ToE will remain a partial theory until they are answered.