So here we have some fish and a barrel. Witness the video below. Go ahead, watch it. I'll wait.
Lock and load!
I'm sure someone somewhere else has run this down better than I can, but what the hell. I'll give it a shot too.
"Evolution teaches that energy...plus matter can occasionally create new life." - No, no, no. Once again, creationists miss the mark. Evolution says nothing about the creation of new life. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Evolution describes what happens after life already exists. Evolution is about the effects of breeding, not about spontaneous generation of life. Evolution doesn't describe "creation of new life" any more than the theory of gravity or "Everybody Loves Raymond" does.
What they're getting at is abiogenesis, which is a completely separate theory from evolution. But even that, they get wrong. There's nothing in mainstream theories of abiogenesis that says you should find life in a fucking jar of peanut butter. The conditions inside of jar of peanut fucking butter do not fucking resemble the conditions of early Earth in which life first fucking formed, you fucking worthless, ignorant cunts. That's like saying "We never find babies in jars of peanut butter, so babies must never be born." Real experiments concerning abiogenesis look very different indeed. Completely different set of circumstances, completely different set of chemicals, completely...ah, fuck it.
And I won't even go into the whole "Did you try looking with a microscope instead of the naked eye?" thing. Or how strains of e coli evolve to thrive in those conditions and sometimes infect our food supply, causing recalls of spinach and lettuce. Nope. Not worth it.
Abiogenesis recognizes the fact that the right combination of the right chemicals at the right time under the right conditions is a longshot. The odds are way against it. But it only had to happen once. In all of the history of the Earth, it only had to happen one time. To beat those odds just once seems like less of a herculean task, dunnit? After that, we're off to the races.
"Creation vs. Evolution" or "Biblical Literalism vs. Naturalism?"
Part of having a productive debate is agreeing on definitions. Framing the debate is key to getting anywhere. In this, the notion of a "Creation vs. Evolution" debate has done its debaters a disservice.
Evolution is only one piece of the naturalistic puzzle, but its opponents seem to misunderstand that more often than not. I can't tell you how many times I've heard creationists say "Something can't come from nothing" in a debate about evolution. The thing is, evolution doesn't suggest any such thing.
Evolution requires life to already be there before it can start working. Evolution says nothing at all about how the universe came to be, or about how life first appeared on Earth. It doesn't address the issue one way or the other. It can't. It's not designed to. It deals with what happens once life capable of reproduction is already in place. Anything outside of that is not evolution. The formation of the universe is not evolution. The appearance of life on Earth is not evolution. The planets being in rotation around the sun is not evolution. Got it?
Creationists have a hard time with this. They have an entire system which gives them all the answers they need. It's counterintuitive to say that one theory explains X, another explains Y, and the two have nothing at all to do with each other. X might turn out to be 100% wrong, but Y is still true. That gives people trouble.
What creationists are really arguing against is a naturalistic/materialistic explanation of the universe and our place in it. They can't keep straight what part is The Big Bang and what part is Abiogenesis. Personally, I find it a bit amusing that they don't tackle abiogenesis. For one, evolution is about as proven a science as you can get. You fight evolution, you're fighting a losing battle. Secondly, abiogenesis is not that well documented or even theorized. It's a much, much weaker theory than evolution. By contrast, it's easy pickings for creationists. Yet most of 'em haven't even heard the term before.
Abiogenesis describes the origins of life on Earth. How life arose from non-life. You have a regular old planet, then life suddenly forms. This is abiogenesis and not evolution.
Progress on abiogenesis is slow. There are several competing hypotheses and no clear winner yet. It's a rough field to get a straight answer in. The chemistry and conditions of very very very very early Earth aren't around anymore for us to study, and it's not the sort of thing that fossilizes well. You'd think creationists would hop all over that as the weak point in naturalism, but they're stuck in the anti-evolution rut. That's like boxing Mike Tyson in his prime when you could just fight Dakota Fanning in a cage match and call it a night.
This is not to say that if abiogenesis is flawed, creation is the only alternative. That's what's known as post hocto procto (pulling lobsters out of your ass like Jayne Mansfield).
