Im really not used to a discussion forum of this size, I keep jumping in and out of threads but I'll try to jump in here and try to keep up with it if I can. First off evolution is not natural science per se, its a synthesis of science and philosophy. It is essentially an arguement against 'special creation' Im convinced it is antithesitic it its intent and there is nothing Ive seen to convince me otherwise.
When Darwin wrote Origin of Species he was proposing an argument based on an essay by Malthus which was not natural science nor natural history, it was natural philosophy. The principles out lined in the essay are based on the principle that drives empirical science and inductive scientific method. " experience is the true source and foundation of knowledge" (Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population). His essay and Origin of Species are arguments and elucidations (explainations) of theory, which is philosophy not natural science in the empirical sense. It is not only permissable for natural science to weave theory and practical considerations it is vital. The principle he elucidates is actually a common sense observation "Population increases geometrically, sustence increases arithmetical", in other words population increases faster then the enviroments ability to sustain life. The Malthusian model claims that 'divergence of character', which is another way of describing natural selection, is how survival is determined in nature. Anyone interested in the philosophy of science might want to check this out. This is the philosophical treatise that inspired the argument in Darwin's Origin of Species.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.1.html
In the first five of the 14 chapters Darwin describes observations underlying the theory of natural selection. He talks about artificial selection (especially important) in domesticated animals and compares them to how nature selects preexisting variants. Chapter 3 describes the Malthus struggle for existence, and chapter 4 details the environmental influences. In chapter 5 there are a series of 'guesses at the sources of natural selection. Chapter 6 he anticipates arguments against the theory and most of the rest he takes the detals from his observations and explains them using this theory of natural selection. Thats why the book was revised six times by 1872, it was theoretical. The premise of Origin of Species is very straight forward and clearly metaphysical in its character, anyone contending that this has nothing to do with God should read Darwin. A theist who belived in special creation was actully way ahead of him on the principles natural variation and developed what are truly scientific laws based on experimentation not philosophy. Mendel crossed and cataloged some 24,034 plants and came up with two scientific laws. Darwin makes some observations and forms a theory that is actually an attack on theistic belief. The science involved has nothing to do with the metaphysics of evolution except as a smoke screen. The philosophy he was arguing against is described here:
" Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous, process.'" (Philosophy of Creation, Rev. Baden Powell)
There are two issues here of interest to a theistic world view, the principle of creation and the miraculous. If God created the earth and all of life then it is by definition supernatural. Im accused of not knowing what the issues are here but I do. Darwin is claiming that God did not create different species independantly as described in Genesis.
"namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous." (Taken from the first chapter of Origin of Species). If you look at the context you will notice that it is the bottomline i.e. main point
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/preface.html
Evolution says that we evolved from single cells called Eukaryotic cells. All I am saying is that this transition from molecules to amino acids that produce living cells without the benefit of genetics information from a parent cell is a transition. For these cells to produce the Cambrian explosion is a transition, for hominoids to produce hominids is a trasition. Transition based on a priori supposition that God didnt 'create' any of this. The redundancy of saying God had nothing to do with it will not make it true. There is another presumption that anyone who belives that life originated with God in a special creation described in Genesis is ignorance of natural science. This is prejudice plain and simple, not the science that maintains " experience is the true source and foundation of knowledge". What I have, and other Christians have 'experinced', with regards to the study of life and rational understanding of reality is that God created life as described in Genesis. Evolution is not science its metaphysics based on naturalistic presumption.
"In laboratory experiments aimed at simulating conditions on a lifeless Earth, a messy mixture of amino acids can be formed, consisting of mostly glycine and d/l-alanine. Not all amino acids found in proteins can be synthesized in this manner, while many not used by living systems do result from these experiments. A product consisting of exclusively left-handed amino acids never results,"
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-313.htm
The real problem is that you need to go from molecules to amino acids, nucleotides carbohydrates and lipids. Then engineer RNA, DNA, and Lipid spheres before the first primordial cell is formed. The really tricky part is the nucleic acid sugars ribose and deoxyribose are asymetric (like a left hand and right hand). To make 150 years of trying to deal with this paradox (no pun intended) there are still only two myths fabricated to facilitate this: 1. Meterorites 2. Chirality spontaniously generated from molecules with the ability to replicate.
