[Alamo-Girl]

Your replies fascinate me, js1138. In some other time and place the sidebar would make for a hilarious comedy skit.

Over and over, I keep saying that Darwin’s theory does not address abiogenesis v biogenesis. And yet, over and over, you insist that I do.

The irony is quite simple and should be readily apparent to anyone: “Life from life” is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the Law of Biogenesis.”.

What makes it an irony is the unexpected fact that the issue he chose not to tackle (abiogenesis v biogenesis) - is itself raised by his own presupposition, that life begets life. The irony does not change the fact that Darwin did not posit a theory to address abiogenesis v. biogenesis.

You made an observation which I found particularly telling. You said:

First, there is the possible case that first life was zapped into existence by a deity. This is, in fact, the scenario presented in Darwin's Origin. Note that the miraculous nature of the zapping does not change the fact that it is life from non-life.

In this, your number one scenario, the non-living matter is not spontaneously self-organizing into life. The causal agency (the zapper) is a Deity who is alive by any definition of life (successfully communicating, aware, willful, acting on decisions, etc.) Thus life begets life.

As a final point, your first scenario removes three of the four Aristotlean causes from the table (one more than methodological naturalism). The four causes are: formal, material, efficient and final. Your first scenario considers only the material cause.

If you would like to delve into abiogenesis v biogenesis, I'm game! But the first step must be a definition of life v. non-life/death in nature.

[YHAOS]

"The irony is quite simple and should be readily apparent to anyone: 'Life from life' is the necessary presupposition for Darwin’s entire theory and it also happens to be the Law of Biogenesis."

"What makes it an irony is the unexpected fact that the issue he chose not to tackle (abiogenesis v biogenesis) - is itself raised by his own presupposition, that life begets life. The irony does not change the fact that Darwin did not posit a theory to address abiogenesis v. biogenesis."

(see also msgs #1562 & #1553) Not only an irony, Milady, but a delicious irony in that The Masters of the Universe, after declaring both the ancient philosophers and their musings to be useless, even contemptible, now find themselves contending with the same fundamental issues of the First Cause.{ 8^)