What kind of question is that? I mean, what's the equal sign doing in there?
You are trying to draw me into an acknowledgement that Darwinist evolution is about the origin of species, not the origin of Life. Okay. I so acknowledge.
But the problem of origin of Life does not go away: If matter is all that there is, then it must — all by itself — in some way account for the origin of Life. For we observe that ours is a living universe, or at least one primed for life.
There is a deep "mystery" of an ersatz religious quality embedded in the notion of abiogenesis, a/k/a biopoiesis: How inorganic matter bootstraps itself into organic (i.e., "living") matter.
I do not see rocks bootstrapping themselves into life forms. So on the basis of direct observation, I assume that inorganic matter has no capability to do this.
No wonder you want to make sure that we do not conflate evolution with abiogenesis!
But again, the problem of the origin of Life does not go away, even if Darwinists aren't interested in the problem. How can they be — when their own presuppositions entertain only "naturalistic" (i.e., materialistic) explanations?
And yet what kind of a science can biology be, if it refuses to ask the most essential question that ostensibly belongs to a science of Life (biology = study of Life): What is Life itself? And how can we answer that question, if we do not know what the origin of Life is?
Thank you for writing, tacticalogic. Long time no see!
Do you not understand the difference between atheism, and believing that God created life with the ability to evolve? Many people do, and you insult them every time you post something like that.
It's quite easy to find publications in Biology cataloging what life looks like - but precious few that discuss what life "is", e.g. Rosen.
Thank you so much for all your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!