The Origin of life and the process by which life evolved are two entirely separate issues. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life.
That is incorrect. Evolutionary theory is a comprehensive scientific explanation of life, from its origins to the present (and makes some speculative guesses for the future as well). Cosmology goes further back to the origins and evolution of the universe.
But we’re talking about young-earth Creationism (YEC) here, which denies pretty much everything about evolutionary theory, including obviously the ancient age of the earth and descent with modification. YEC theorists believe the earth is somewhere between 6,000 to 10,000 years old, and that the earth and all life was created within six days, as described in the Bible. They believe that dinosaurs and humans once co-existed.
My point was that young-earth Creationists appear to be lying in their propaganda tracts, rather than being merely deluded. Here’s another example. I was hanging out on campus before heading over to my geological oceanography class, and there were some young-earth Creationists passing out little pamphlets. I got into lots of arguments with Creationists back in high school, and so I wanted to see if these guys had anything new. One of the “facts” they listed was the sedimentation rate of the world’s estuaries. If the world was really as old as scientists claim, they said, then the ocean would be very shallow.
Here’s the funny thing: they would be right, if it weren’t for the earth’s crusts being continuously recycled through a process known as subduction. In fact, some 18th and 19th century scientists were criticized for placing the earth’s age at 12,000 years by measuring sedimentation rates, rather than accepting the traditional age of 6,000 years (this being before much about geology was known). Now anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of modern geology would know about crust recycling, and therefore know that the sedimentation rate is not a reliable indicator of the earth’s age. Of course it’s possible these folks were merely perusing archaic tomes on estuary deposit rates, but I think it’s more likely some of them have taken classes or read modern books, and then deliberately omitted information to bolster their failing arguments.
While it is impossible to prove that such-and-such event caused life to begin on earth, scientists have seriously been attempting to explain the origin of life. My limited knowledge of the subject comes from layman’s books written by Freeman Dyson and Richard Dawkins coupled with my simple understanding of John von Neumann’s self-replicating machines and chaos theory, but it seems to me that scientists working on this question have a good idea of what they are looking for. They won’t be able to prove that our origin occurred in a specific way, but it seems likely they will find a mechanism which does lead to the creation of life. If scientists are able to develop mechanisms which create life does that necessarily establish how life came to be? No, it doesn’t; however, being able to create life would seem to indicate that it’s not as difficult as we currently believe it to be.
Perhaps the forumosans who have a much better understanding of this subject can clarify or correct these points.
Yes its a hot area of debate, and its not accepted across the board as to what exactly constitutes life.
Are Prion’s life?