Often raised against evolution is the concept that life cannot come from non-life. Now lets set aside the fact that this has nothing at all to do with biological evolution, which is the discussion of changes in existing life. Do creationists not realize that that in order to be a creationist, you must also believe that life came from non-life? The lowest form of Creationist will occasionally, in a fit of ignorance, exclaim "We didn't evolve from rocks!" while the slightly more cognizant variety will make the same claim however they will dress it up with slightly less ridiculous language such as "abiogenesis is impossible".
According to Genesis, humans were made out of dust, non-living material. So we have two theories: Scientific Abiogenesis and Theological Abiogenesis.
Scientific Abiogenesis (and keep in mind I'm a philosophy major, not a biologist so I might not have the best grasp of this concept) claims that very basic amino acids and proteins formed in the primordial ooze billions of years ago, and over the course of many millions of years and incremental, tiny changes formed incredibly simple organisms that slowly became more complex due to mutation.
Theological Abiogenesis claims God breathed on dirt and a fully functional human popped into existence.
Now at this time I will make no claim as to which one is true or false, I merely want to raise the point that when a Creationist claims that that Scientific Abiogenesis is ridiculous, the only alternative is a scenario that is many orders of magnitude more unbelievable. In what kind of mind is the latter of these two MORE logically sound then the former?
Both theories are essentially the same: Life came from inorganic material. However the Creationist theory also presupposes the existence of a preexisting INCREDIBLY complex intelligence, with no explanation or description of either the origin of this complex intelligence OR the processes it used to create life.
So why do creationists insist on Claiming abiogenesis is impossible? Their theory is BASED on a form of abiogenesis far less logical then the scientific theory of abiogenesis.
According to Genesis, humans were made out of dust, non-living material. So we have two theories: Scientific Abiogenesis and Theological Abiogenesis.
Scientific Abiogenesis (and keep in mind I'm a philosophy major, not a biologist so I might not have the best grasp of this concept) claims that very basic amino acids and proteins formed in the primordial ooze billions of years ago, and over the course of many millions of years and incremental, tiny changes formed incredibly simple organisms that slowly became more complex due to mutation.
Theological Abiogenesis claims God breathed on dirt and a fully functional human popped into existence.
Now at this time I will make no claim as to which one is true or false, I merely want to raise the point that when a Creationist claims that that Scientific Abiogenesis is ridiculous, the only alternative is a scenario that is many orders of magnitude more unbelievable. In what kind of mind is the latter of these two MORE logically sound then the former?
Both theories are essentially the same: Life came from inorganic material. However the Creationist theory also presupposes the existence of a preexisting INCREDIBLY complex intelligence, with no explanation or description of either the origin of this complex intelligence OR the processes it used to create life.
So why do creationists insist on Claiming abiogenesis is impossible? Their theory is BASED on a form of abiogenesis far less logical then the scientific theory of abiogenesis.
