Creation vs. Evolution is not a valid opposition.

I wouldn't say that evolution doesn't deal with creation at all. Sure, the party line is that abiogenesis is not part of Darwin's theory, and strictly speaking I agree. However, let's not pretend that what we know about evolution by natural selection doesn't tell us anything about the origin of life.Neo-Darwinism postulates mindless, purposeless processes that range from the random (DNA recombination) to the deterministic (natural selection) which have operated on ancestral systems to form the ones we see today. Contemporary species derive from ancient ones via mechanical processes, not purposeful design. The biological structures in organisms today derive from those in their ancestors. When it comes down to it, we can't separate the process whereby species have evolved from the very concept of life itself.Isn't the success of Darwin's theory in postulating these processes reason enough to believe it could tell us about the origin of the processes themselves? Certainly the notion of self-organization, though ostensibly non-Darwinian, follows the logic of mindless processes giving rise to complexity. Success in selective struggles could indeed explain the origin of the replication devices that predate our complex DNA systems. Any material mechanism is superior to the sort of speculation about 'purpose' and 'intelligence' that has never yet proven useful in the biological arena.Evolutionary speculation concerning origins truly has a long way to go. However, let's not underestimate the worth of Darwin's theory in the search. This is inherent in Darwinism itself: distinctions like 'origin' are matters of degree, whether for species, biological structures, or life itself.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Amen, Moose.The problem lies in the fact that creationists are allowed the luxury of demanding proof that the Big Bang happened before they admit that species evolve. I agree with MrJack that the incontrovertible fact of species evolution doesn't depend on the notion of origins.However, too many crypto-creationists are willing to accept species evolution as long as they can retain their belief in the 'intelligent design' of the original biomolecules, the candylike succulence of DNA's information, the laws of physics, or some such nonsense. This is where the fine distinction 'twixt evolution and abiogenesis becomes intolerable for me.The uncomfortable fact of Darwinism boils down to this: you either subscribe to the notion of design-with-no-designer or you don't. If undirected processes are sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on Earth, I feel they're relevant in the explanation of life itself. It's beyond me how people can agree that material mechanisms are responsible for biological wonders, but that for the ultimate origin of life itself we must evoke a 'purpose' or 'intelligence' that has never heretofore added anything to the discussion of biology.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Welcome back, Mammuthus, feliz ao nuevo to you & yours.As usual, you're right. The way creationists demand eyewitness evidence of life emerging from inorganic chemicals before they'll subscribe to the notion of common ancestry continues to be a canard of the first order. I merely wanted to point out that I'm similarly irritated by folks (influenced by Behe, no doubt) who magnanimously declare themselves convinced by the evidence for common ancestry, but insist that the first biomolecules (or the information in DNA, or whatever) had to be the product of Intelligent Intervention. That way they can pretend to be following the evidence wherever it leads, when they're only subscribing to a creationism that dares not speak its name.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mammuthus,Cmo est, hermano? No cambia nada en el mundo loco, s?I agree that standard-issue creationists are misguided in their efforts to equate the independent concepts of species evolution and abiogenesis. I also concur that their efforts stem as much from ignorance of the distinction between the two fields as from a willful attempt to obscure the distinction.I'm more suspicious of the ease with which the Behes of the intelligent design creationist movement claim to accept the evidence of species evolution, then deny that the same methodology of empirical evidential inquiry is valid when applied to systems like the BacFlag or DNA. It's like they're saying that they accept that milk is a product of natural processes, but cows are miraculous.If this is their way of saying that design-with-no-designer is not scientifically valid at all unless it's valid at all levels, then ironically enough I agree with them. Darwin's theory is revolutionary precisely because it shows biological order emerging without purpose. Creationists ever since have been seeking the opportunity to reintroduce this notion of purpose into nature. Unfortunately for them, nature itself doesn't seem to require the notion on any level.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall