To: Cogito who wrote (15800 ) 8/19/2011 6:29:01 PM From: Brumar89 1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300 First off most evolutionists really do believe evolution explains the origin of life. They just don't know how. It's a matter of faith for them. Second it's not just a matter of evolution not explaining the origin of life, its that what science has discovered about life, that its information and code based, presents a major problem for any naturalistic origin. There are no known chemical or physical laws that would produce an information coding system. The fact that the origin of life must logically be based on a designing intelligence means that we should keep an open mind about assuming that only naturalistic forces have brought about the diversity of species. While genetic drift, mutations, natural selection may have produced a lot of the diversity we see, it's also reasonable to think the guiding intelligence that produced life in the first place may have well done a lot of guiding along the way. But it's not as if Intelligent Design has an answer for where life came from, either, other than to say that somebody smart and immensely powerful made it. So basically, you're saying that since we don't know exactly how everything got started , it has to have been the work of a magical Guy in the Sky. Actually the fact that we don't know the details of how the designing intelligence went about forming life isn't so important. It is of profound importance whether life is designed or is an accident, though. Design means there IS a 'big guy in the sky', if that's what you want to call him. That's not an insignificant thing. It opens up the possibility that there is a purpose in our existence. And where did the Creator come from? If you can't explain that, you haven't answered anything. Wrong. If there's a creator, that's of profound importance to us. Whether we know the creator's origin, if it has one, isn't too important to us at all. If this WASN'T of profound importance, you wouldn't have folks attacking the idea of intelligent design or creation. Some people prefer there not to be any big guy in the sky, for various reasons. For people with this philosophical preference, evolution serves as an important statement of faith that must be defended. Aldous Huxley: "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning ; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." --Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), pp. 270, 273. (As quoted by Answers in Genesis at answersingenesis.org , 10/13/04) Thomas Nagel: “…I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. "My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about life , including everything about the human mind. Darwin enabled modern secular culture to heave a great collective sigh of relief, by apparently providing a way to eliminate purpose, meaning and design as fundamental features of the world. (Thomas Nagel 1997 The Last Word Oxford Univ Pr October 2001).