JM>To the Evolution Mailing List:
JM>The basic assumption of evolution is spontaneous generation.
It has the form of an assertion, but the proposition is false.
The basic assumption of evolutionary change is
self-replicating systems with inheritance. It matters not a
whit to evolutionary theories whether the first
self-replicators on earth were derived via self-organization
in situ, seeded by aliens (see Farmer's "Venus On The
Half-Shell"), produced by fiat creation, or via some other as
yet unknown process. It may be a matter of some personal
import to certain creationist/agnostic/atheist writers
concerning evolution, but that doesn't touch upon the
theories.
JM>"Spontaneous generation, in biology, is the theory, now
JM>disproved, that living organisms sometimes arise from
JM>nonliving matter. It is sometimes referred to as
JM>abiogenesis, as opposed to biogenesis, the now established
JM>fact living organisms arise only from the reproduction of
JM>previously existing organisms."
JM> Above is the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entry under
JM>Spontaneous Generation. It is also the experience of about
JM>5 billion people many billions of times currently and since
JM>the beginning of recorded history, without one single
JM>exception. The box score for biogenesis versus abiogenesis
JM>is many billions to zero.
One wouldn't expect it to be otherwise under any of the
available scenarios.
JM>Please send me a "Yes" or a "No" to the statement:
JM>I subscribe to abiogenesis (spontaneous generation).
JM>Thank you for your help with this survey.
I answer "mu" (see Pirsig). Encyclopedia entries
notwithstanding, it is both too early to declare abiogenesis
research as being incapable of producing interesting and
relevant results, and too late to have "a designer did it" be
treated as a sufficiently explanatory alternative. The
seminal work done on rebutting "spontaneous generation" is
easily differentiated in both concepts and methods from modern
"abiogenesis" work, because "spontaneous generation" concerned
the hypothesized development of *modern* organisms from
putatively non-living material. This is a change in context
and usage of the terms, and simple but false equivalences do
not set aside the content of modern research.
I develop reasons why the appeal to supernatural causation is
always premature in
http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Elsberry.html
Wesley