Science has a pretty solid theory on abiogensis bit it isn't relevant.
It has nothing observed or testable.
As evolution presupposes strictly naturalistic-materialistic (NM) causes to explain all variation and adaptation then, yes, it is relevant. You're asking for a mulligan at the first tee.
Now one might proffer an intelligent designer kick-started evolution, but then we veer off into the intent of the design.
Introduce me to the Intelligent Designer in RL and show how ID can be applied to a single practical problem.
I await your response to THIS one with baited breath.[/quote]
1. If you met the designer how would knowing it in any way interfere with the study of any branch of science including the origin of life. In fact the founders of science figure prominently from theistic religion.
2. You claim in your subsequent paragraph that justice and mercy are not unique to theists. Hm-m-m...
3. What could be considered proof? Even if giant flaming letters were to appear in the sky proclaiming "Yes, freedumb2003, I exist--God" it would require little effort to rationalize a hallucination or pyrotechnics or something.
It seems to me that the best method of inquiry is to ask: is there any phenomenon to which all observers will agree exists despite individual biases/perceptions/whatnot that cannot be explained in materialist means? Now some would call this looking for a miracle. It seems arrogant in the extreme that Deity--if it exists--should jump through hoops to entertain spoiled children with parlor tricks; as if miracles should be a matter of turning whine-into-water-into-wine.
Thus my reference to Justice and Mercy. These are immaterial--as opposed to irrelevant--because they cannot be observed, measured or formulated. I have always asked why races cannot slaughter or enslave with moral impunity, why the genetically handicapped cannot be excised from the breeding pool and all the things that make us cringe and at best I have received is a lame "social order enhances survivability."
Horse shit. If anything man's "ascension"--if non-existent standards can be presumed to exist--is predicated on the unintentional, pitiless, mindless and unending slaughter and suffering of innumerable beings before us and it assumes we deserve preservation/ascension for the future.
Again, horse shit. Evolution can just as easily and capriciously throw mankind back into the australio-pithicus era with a flick of its genetic wrist.
But oh how the atheists wail at the thought of their preious little world being mindless and cruel. I chuckle everytime I am reminded how many times the secular humanists rewrote their manifesto because it gave tyrants too much wiggle room for their tastes.
They exist. They just aren't measurable. Like Love. I mean if you are going to go down that road, let's take it to the end.
Love doesn't exist either.
What you mistook for your mother's affection was a biochemical disposition to species preservation. It is nothing she conjured within herself it is merely the happenstance of countless molecular variations over time. Those creatures that had the genetic predisposition for offspring nurturing had a greater propensity for species survival and those who lacked it died out.
Your wife does not love you, she merely possesses a biologial unction to procreate.
Your children cling to you because it enhances their odds of producing a successive generation.
And sure as shit the universe doesn't love you because we are phlegm into fish into marsupials into men. It never intended it, is unaware of it and will never know or care about the outcome or offer recompense for the suffering and "injustice" born by its accidents...and that's the *******ed naturalistic fact.
