Peg writes:
you know when ever i have such arguments with evolutionists, they always are quick to say that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
That's quite understandable, since the ToE literally has nothing to do with abiogenesis, and you communicate often with very knowledgeable evolutionists. If an evolutionist were to say otherwise, he'd be demonstrating that he has a very poor grasp of the theory.
but then in the same breath they say that abiogensis is the only explanation for how life began...even Richard Dawkins says 'it MUST have happened that way'
I think that if you can overcome your intuitive association of the two sciences, you might better notice that these are typically separated into different breaths, as well as into different disciplines. It should be no surprise when they are mentioned in the same paragraph, as they are both concerned with life.
Mr. Dawkins the evolutionist may also have strong opinions about who is going to win the World Cup. But that doesn't mean he's implying his favorite team succeeds through natural selection. Abiogenesis is about life. Evolution is about life. The link between the two is more than incidental, I agree. However, the two scientific disciplines run on distinctly different turf at this time.
...creationists hear that argument and object to that idea but they go one step further and reject all of evolution because they cannot separate the two. If they could separate the two then there should be no more debate.
I'd like some clarification, please. Are you talking YECs, OECs or both? Do you mean no more debate about the abiogenesis issue between Creationists and evolutionists, or some broader truce? Between who and about what?
Unfortunately i dont beleive that evolutionists really do separate the view that abiogensis was the cataclyst to evolution.
You just might be in the best place on the web to find out what evolutionists
really think about that separation. I agree with the others that have chimed in. They
are separate.
I think the comments made in this thread (along with my link to Darwins letters to his associates) shows that to be the case.
Taking all of Darwin's writings into account, he appears to believe in special creation. He's an evolutionist, a Creationist, and someone who would be very interested in investigations into abiogenesis.
but clearly there are a lot of creationists who continue to deny evolution based on abiogenesis and that is due to evolutionists because they have failed to 'really' separate the two subjects
I agree. Evolutionary scientists need a good PR guy. Unfortunately, they seem to have neither the funding nor the stomach for such activities. Science is accustomed to letting its discoveries stand or fall on their own merit. Evolution has earned its stripes well. However its "advertising" is mostly limited to research papers, encyclopedias, and textbooks.
Perhaps some wealthy benefactors might grant some funds to establish an Institution for coercing the public into Discovering the Truth about evolution; and researchers there could find ways to make people doubt the truth about Bible stories. We could call it the Discovering Institute!
I think only religious folks would be taken seriously by religious folks on this issue. Many Creationists take it for granted that evolutionists are liars. Initiatives for informing the public of the realities of the debate will have to come from Christian organizations. It might not be too difficult. I know quite a few Christians who are quite fed up with being associated with Creationists' "misunderstandings" about science.
to creationists who like to start at the very beginning, abiogenesis is the only beginning that evolutionists offer.
I would agree if you had said, "...the only beginning that science offers." Evolutionists seem to be the eternal whipping boys of Creationists, and in this case it's especially unfair because today evolution and abiogenesis are indeed separate fields of study.
Yes, abiogenesis is the only reasonable explanation that science offers for explaining the start of life at this time. It seems that Creationists aren't happy with science's progress (or lack of it) in this field. Perhaps they will one day go to debate the issues at AvCforum.net, where Abos meet Creos...
Edited by glowby, : Added a winky face at the end...