The origins of life is abiogenesis, not the theory of evolution.
ID is pursued as a theory by people like this, [link] and [link] , however they consistently fail to establish scientific credibility (mostly since, per their own admission, "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well" (also add alchemy or divination or palmistry)). It sums up that by admitting supernatural causation, they throw out the falsifiability criteria out of science. At that point, ID has exited the practice of science, it is just philosophical wanking to justify one's own preconceived ideas.
Therefore most ID argumentation remains mostly a "battle of the negative" (rather than proving ID right, they try and prove evolution wrong, which of course is a false dichotomy), and a political fight (see misc. legislature proposals on the topic at hand).
you mean in comparison to creationism? rock solid.
For one, it actually is a scientific theory, meaning among others it is falsifiable and relies on natural explanations to natural phenomenons. For another one, experiments have actually been conducted that support its different threads...more that can be said for any of the ill-conceived attempts to recast religious beliefs into pseudo-science.
At the end, that is indeed what remains, that is a bad idea to try to cast religious beliefs, that should exist on Faith alone, into scientific theories. It leads to masquerading one's religion under a false mantel of pseudo-science to attempt to give it some legitimacy. Religion ought not to desire to claim its legitimacy through such methods. It is pointless and debases religion.
I wasn't speaking of creationism with that question. I have my own issues with that hypothesis. I was simply referring to the idea that something with intelligence triggered life on earth, and looking at scientific fact from a standpoint of order, rather than chaos. I'm not saying religion should have a place in the scientific community, nor am I saying that any particular "god" brought about the process, or is manipulating the process.
I mean as an idea for the worlds origin, if one where to look solely at the information at present, there is as much speculation behind the abiogenesis theory as behind the biogenesis theory, as it seems no one in the scientific community, that I've seen anyway, has a solid answer behind the creation of the first cell, where evolution starts.
I wasn't speaking of creationism with that question. I have my own issues with that hypothesis. I was simply referring to the idea that something with intelligence triggered life on earth, and looking at scientific fact from a standpoint of order, rather than chaos.
Be careful there, ID has been shown to be just a relabeling of creationism...so you are threading thin ice at best by trying to delineate between a <hypothetical non-Christian ID> and <ID as it currently exist, a Christian religious belief>.
In any case, let us play with this for a minute and let's start at the beginning...
Question 1. Did life on earth start by supernatural or by natural means (irrespective of an intelligent and/or cause cause to those natural means)? Did life on earth start through processes explainable by natural phenomenons?
If you answer supernatural, then you are into creationism, you have escaped the realm of science and are now making a religious/philosophical argument. If you answer natural, you get to move to the next question
Question 2. Assuming life on earth came about by natural processes, did it start by an external (potentially intelligent) agent, or by the chemical processes posited in the theory of abiogenesis?
Here the key is occam's razor. For the current theory of abiogenesis, I need to posit no other natural phenomenons than the basic laws of physics. For the theory of alien intervention, I have to assume causation by an as currently undescribed source of extraterrestrial origins. If we ignore the issue of what caused the alien cause to exist itself in the first place (the recurrence problem), I am still left with needing the current laws of physics (through which the alien cause acted) and the existence of this alien cause to support this. Occam would require me to select the theory making the fewest assumptions.
You also of course have a testability problem. The current theory of abiogenesis is tested against experiments and modeling, from Miller-Urey to measurements of hydrothermal vents, [link] . What do you propose to test to verify youyr hypothesis, keeping in mind that an unfalsifiable hypothesis can notbe a scientific hypothesis ...
Anyhow...what it boils down to is that abiogenesis is the currently correct scientific theory to explain the origins of life on earth. Like all scientific theories, it can be proven wrong. But until proven wrong, it is the correct theory. The thing to remember is that from the perspective of scientific validity, a fully scientific theory even if incomplete still trumps a religious/philosophical theory (god/aliens did it), since the scientific theory offers testability while a theory that calls in for a mysterious cause fails on any (or all) of natural causation, occam's Razor, testability ground.
Don't take me wrong, you can believe anything you choose to, you can even be partial to this or that without having to justify yourself to me. You could even choose to scientifically pursue research in any alternative theories you wish to. But when it comes to "what is the correct current scientific theory for the origins of life on earth?", the answer is abiogenesis.
Because all the arguments for ID fall under two categories: blind speculation asserted as fact but without any supportive evidence whatsoever and which also can never be disproved (such as the existence of an "intelligent designer"); and erronious claims often repeated despite the knowledge that they have already been disproved (Irreducible Complexity).
If you want the explanation for the origin of life, look up the theory of abiogenesis.
The theory that simple life arose from non-living inorganic matter via chemical processes has more merit and support (thanks to the Miller-Urey experiment, among others) than the hypothesis that some unspecified deity caused everything to magically appear out of nothing.
Complex life came from simple life came from complex organic chemicals came from simple organic chemicals came from complex non-organic chemicals came from simple non-organic chemicals.
Just like a fish didn't turn into a cat, life didn't just suddenly appear from non-life. It was a slow process involving many steps. Detailing each of those steps is complicated and full of some unknowns. But much is known in that process. Some has even been duplicated. (You can read more about all this on Wiki's abiogenesis page or TalkOrigin's collection of articles.)
None of biogenesis is known. Unlike abiogenesis, it is purely speculative, unfalsifiable, and cannot exist within the purview of science.
It doesn't meet the qualifications of a theory: Theories are dynamic bodies of evidence which explain its tenants. The process by which the tenant is true. ID has no body of evidence, no process (other than 'god did it') and the only tenant rests entirely on a ad hoc argument without observation producing the claim. That claim is that structures are too complex to have arisen by chance, even though A. We see several clear steps for these structures progressing from simple to complex and B. Natural selection is not a random process. Thus it is not chance that influences the structure's process.
Neither evolution nor ID are meant for explaining the origin of life. Evolution posits that life exists and has diversified via natural selection and common descent. ID posits that life exists and is too complex to have evolved. When talking about the origin of life you are either talking about abiogenesis or biogenesis, which is creationism. And the ID originators and proponents wanted to make it clear that ID isn't creationism (mostly so their wedge strategy of getting religion into schools would succeed.)
as far as I know, intelligence design is used also to explain how life progressed. that's why in some "intelligence design" museum somewhere (I forget the exact name and place), they depict humans and dinosaurs living side by side, etc, which is clearly wrong.
IMHO, you could pursue ID as a theory explaining how life originates, but it is NOT correct for explaining how life progressed.
When Jesus walked the earth he taught about things like metanoia and having compassion on others and stuff like that; i'm having trouble finding the parts where he says that biological lifeforms are incapable of changing and adapting to their environments over time.
what precisely do you want to know about Cambrian explosion? First of all, keep in mind that Cambrian explosion lasts fro 70-80 millions of years (from Wikipedia). That's not a short time. Second, suppose Cambrian explosion indeed happens. Then it doesn't mean that evolution theory is wrong. Keep in mind also that until now, scientists are still not sure what is the origin of life (I mean, how the first unicellular life comes on Earth; they are still not sure about it. However, read the first chapter of this book: [link]. It explains what MIGHT be the origin of unicellular life, according to the latest scientific understanding.) So if you think Cambrian explosion proves God creates living beings, fine by me. If you think evolution is a divinely guided by God, fine by me too. My purpose here is to show people that once unicellular life exists, mutation will make DNA vary from one creature to another, and natural selection will prefer DNA which makes them adapt better to their environment. This process, given billions of years, will results in various species that we see today. That's what evolution actually is. These mutation among species and natural selection is undeniable facts, supported by many evidences. Also, there are many evidences that apes and humans share common origins. Cambrian explosion doesn't falsify that.
Some point to the increase in oxygen that began around 700 million years ago, providing fuel for movement and the evolution of more complex body structures. Others propose that an extinction of life just before the Cambrian opened up ecological roles, or "adaptive space," that the new forms exploited. External, ecological factors like these were undoubtedly important in creating the opportunity for the Cambrian explosion to occur.
Internal, genetic factors were also crucial. Recent research suggests that the period prior to the Cambrian explosion saw the gradual evolution of a "genetic tool kit" of genes that govern developmental processes. Once assembled, this genetic tool kit enabled an unprecedented period of evolutionary experimentation -- and competition. Many forms seen in the fossil record of the Cambrian disappeared without trace. Once the body plans that proved most successful came to dominate the biosphere, evolution never had such a free hand again, and evolutionary change was limited to relatively minor tinkering with the body plans that already existed. [link]
Why does God exist? Why, because the Bible states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world...Psalm 19:1-4."
Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. We read in Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us,
"He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God's presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God's existence: "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" (Psalm 14:1).
Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.
In addition to the biblical arguments for God's existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God's existence. It begins with the definition of God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived." It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.
I don't want to be an arguerer but still this doesn't prove that science can ever answer "why". It can show that how countless civilizations have left behind archeological remnants and how that brings us to certain points etc. but it will never tell why countless civilizations left remnants and some didn't. It can tell how the logical arguments prove the existence of God but it will never tell why, for example, people find it definite that existence is greater than absence. Just like it can explain with formulas and mathematics how water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen but can never tell why two burnable elements can mix in together to create a non-combustable material.
Even the science of theology approaches religion from a somewhat objective point of view and never argues the existence of the metaphysical out of the social context. It's true that religion cannot be thought separate than science but same goes for science as well. It can't give any fundamental answers without being a part of religion.
Evolution happens, because nature's resources are limited. The organisms that are more adapted to the surrounding environment thrive and have more offspring. Ecology explains quite nicely how the competition between and within species happens (if they share parts of or fully an ecological niche they will end up in a competition).
Evolution happens because it is necessary. It is a natural response to harsh competition. The fittest survive, produce more offpsring and their alleles become more common in population.
But you should remember that evolution is not a thinking, feeling...thing...it is an on-going process that has no goal or mind. So if you are looking for some great why behind it, sorry to disappoint, but it happens because it is necessary. And chance, you can never exaggerate how important pure chance is in evolution. c:
Christians reject macroevolution. Why? Because (1) it is unbiblical, and (2) it is the "Creation account" for atheism. Now, I am not saying that everyone who accepts macroevolution is an atheist. What, I am saying is that for atheism to be true, macroevolution must also be true. If there is no God, then everything we see has to have evolved. Protein molecules became amoebas; amoebas became fish; fish became lizards; lizards became dogs; dogs became monkeys; and monkeys became humans. Despite the absurdity of it, despite the virtually impossible odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance even if given billions of years; this is what many people believe.
"Why do they believe this evolutionary mythology? Atheists believe it because they have no other choice. Others believe it because they have been taught that it is true and have been told that anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant and backwards caveman."
The consequences of believing in evolution can be readily seen in the world today. If we teach children they are nothing by evolved monkeys, why are we surprised when they act like monkeys? If we are told that survival of the fittest is how the world works, why are we surprised when those who think they are the fittest are willing to do anything, no matter how immoral and evil, to make sure they survive?
"If we are nothing but the most highly evolved creature on this planet, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die" (1 Corinthians 15:32).
In contrast, if there is a Creator God, there is meaning and purpose to our existence. There is a reason for good instead of evil, love instead of hate, and mercy instead of revenge. With God, we can recognize places like New Zealand as beautiful examples of God's creative power instead of understanding them to be "random piles of rock" and "dirt" that just happen to cause our neural synapses to fire in a certain way.
Christians reject macroevolution. Why? Because (1) it is unbiblical,...... Christians once rejected that Earth is revolving around the Sun .... and they condemned any people who think that way.
"Why do they believe this evolutionary mythology? because it is supported by many evidences. actually, which parts of evolution theory that you don't agree? only macroevolution? or you disagree too that DNA which better adapt will be preferred?
The consequences of believing in evolution can be readily seen in the world today. If we teach children they are nothing by evolved monkeys, why are we surprised when they act like monkeys? If we are told that survival of the fittest is how the world works, why are we surprised when those who think they are the fittest are willing to do anything, no matter how immoral and evil, to make sure they survive? if you already think badly about evolution theory, then you will interpret everything about it badly. we will be surprised because we are humans, NOT monkeys. we are different from monkeys. also, evolution theory doesn't teach us about survival of the fittest alone. evolution also teaches us that teamwork is necessary. in order to survive, we have to work together with other members of our species. for example, some species of deers will be jumping highly while running from predators, although this makes running more difficult. the reason is that, they want to remind other deers that there are predators. now, why they do this, if their sole purpose if their own survival?
No, and that's not what they said. Evolution happens because resources are limited and one organism will be more adapted to an environment than another. The competition puts pressure on one to succeede and one to fail. Say there is an apple on the desk and you want it. Someone next to you wants it too. Neither of you were designed to be quick but he just happens to be a little quicker than you. Because of that, he grabs the apple before you can and you now have no resource. So you have been eliminated as competition an he is free to move on. This is how evolution functions.