Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GunRunner
Has nothing to do with evolution.

Well, it sort of does actually, under the broader rubric of naturalistic explanations for life and its propagation. If life did not originate naturalistically, then there's much less of a logical reason to assume all of the rest of the naturalistic baggage that comes later.

171 posted on 09/01/2011 8:16:39 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus ("A gentleman considers what is just; a small man considers what is expedient.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
“Well, it sort of does actually, under the broader rubric of naturalistic explanations for life and its propagation. If life did not originate naturalistically, then there's much less of a logical reason to assume all of the rest of the naturalistic baggage that comes later.”

Exactly right. Even the theistic evolutionist must acknowledge that once G-d is put on the table as the one who created the first life from which all others evolve, then he has to see that the same G-d could have created it all. Unless of course they believe that G-d was powerful enough to create the first life but not powerful enough to create all life. They could argue that G-d just chose to create through evolution, and I guess that is one possibility, but certainly another possibility is that G-d created it all. Then the evidence becomes subject to interpretation depending on your view. One man's evidence for common descent is another man's evidence for modular design.

If you take G-d off the table and say it all must be explained by natural means, then there is no credible explanation for how life originated.

189 posted on 09/01/2011 12:15:28 PM PDT by Mudtiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson