P
Poke
Guest
Willtor said:When you say "life evolved from non-life" you're not being technical, even though a technical hand is precisely what this discussion needs.
When an Evolutionist says "evolution says nothing about abiogenesis", he's not trying to be technical, he's trying to obfuscate.
Evolution means to unfold, or to develop. The development of life from non-life, with technical accuracy can be called "evolution." And this evolution is solidly bolted to the bottom end of Darwin paradigm, which is why it's a common subject in origin forums.
Indeed, in the context of origins debates, Creation says God is the creator. Evolution says Nature is the creator, whether that be first life, novel species, or the universe. "Theistic Evolution" is actually an oxymoron.
It is dishonesty to pretend the word "evolution" is wholly owned by Darwinism, and that the use of the word in another context is technically inaccurate.
Consider this: a non-Christian comes up to you and tells you that the doctrine of the Hypostastic Union is part of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course, it's not.
To complete your analogy, the Christian would have to have coined the term "Trinity" and not use the term to reference to "Hypostastic Union." Evolutionists didn't create the term "evolution" and they frequently use the term outside of Darwinism. They even use it in regards to abiogenesis.
Upvote
0