dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (05/25/85)
>> [Jim McCrae] >> Open question here. Everyone can have a shot at it. Leif de HP's >> sci-fi case for creationism opened with the assertion that >> the evolution paradigm demands that life arise from non-life. >> Now I've never seen this anywhere and I've scarfed down more >> than my share of text on evolution. In fact, I don't recall that >> theorists discussing evolution even touch the subject of life >> versus rocks except as personal opinion footnotes. >> If I'm wrong about this and evolution does accept as a premise >> that life emerged from non-living stuff, then someone please >> straighten me out. (Is non-life dead? Or UNDEAD!!!? Aaaoooooo!!) > [Jeff Sonntag] > You're not wrong. The theory of evolution applies to how speciation > occurs, not to how life arose origionally. Whether life arose from > nonlife or was planted by aliens or was zapped into being by some > all-powerful godlike being is immaterial to the theory of evolution. How does one account for the origin of species without accounting for the origin of the first species? That seems just a little too convenient. But your statement is false in any case. The notion that chemical evolution is integral to the theory of evolution is widespread. (Miller and Fox come to mind.) The BSCS (high school biology curriculum) "Blue edition", for example, is titled "Molecules to Man". I just saw this in a library the other day, so I looked in it out of curiosity. The chapter preceding the one on (what Jeff calls) evolution was about - you guessed it - abiogenesis. Evidently there was no such false dichotomy between the beginning of life and speciation of existing life in the minds of the editors. > However, the theory of creation addresses both the origin of life > and the origin of species, and since most creationists see evolution > as diametrically opposed to evolution, many creationists think that > the theory of evolution would be somehow deficient if failed to address > both issues as well. (actually, the creationists' theory doesn't really > address the issue of the origin of life, they just say that gawd > created it, and fervently ignore anyone boorish enough to ask who > created gawd.) > Creationists also like to tie the idea of (life <= nonlife) to > evolution since there is comparatively little evidence for this idea (unless > you count the fact that we exist) and that makes it much easier to snipe > away at than at evolution itself. I.e., it is unscientific to critically analyze something. I get it. Abiogenesis easier to "snipe away at"? Now I understand why you say it's not part of the theory of evolution... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (05/29/85)
> How does one account for the origin of species without accounting for > the origin of the first species? That seems just a little too > convenient. But your statement is false in any case. The notion that > chemical evolution is integral to the theory of evolution is widespread. > (Miller and Fox come to mind.) The BSCS (high school biology > curriculum) "Blue edition", for example, is titled "Molecules to Man". > I just saw this in a library the other day, so I looked in it out of > curiosity. The chapter preceding the one on (what Jeff calls) > evolution was about - you guessed it - abiogenesis. Evidently there > was no such false dichotomy between the beginning of life and > speciation of existing life in the minds of the editors. > To demonstrate that the theory of evolution is independent of the notion of abiogenesis, it is sufficient to point out that many individuals believe that primitive life was created by a Creator, and that once this miracle occurred, evolution over billions of years eventually produced what we see today. This is a version of theological evolutionism, and is a perfectly respectable position. I may be wrong, but it is my impression, reading Fred Hoyle's recent writings, that he subscribes to a view something like this. The following chart shows four positions that have been or are held by reasonable people, classified by two distinguishing characteristics: Creation Abiogenesis Without "Creationism" "Spontaneous Generation" evolution (Ruled out by Pasteur's experiments). With "Theological "Standard Evolutionism" evolution Evolutionism" (As described Above) Yes, it is true that most scientists believe in abiogenesis. Yes, it is true that a discussion of abiogenesis naturally leads to a discussion of evolution. But the two most certainly can be discussed in isolation from each other. The fact of evolution is entirely independent of the possibility of abiogenesis. -- "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely as when they do so from religious conviction." -- Blaise Pascal Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)