The Conceptually Unrelated Nature Of Abiogenesis And Macro-Evolution

Macroevolution is often discussed alongside abiogenesis, the notion of life emerging from non-living matter, as if the two share an inseparable philosophical bond.  The popularity of this approach in Christian circles overlooks the utter lack of conceptual overlap that these two ideas ultimately have.  Indeed, abiogenesis does not require macroevolution and macroevolution does not require abiogenesis--moreover, abiogenesis is not even a rival to basic theism (whether it is compatible with Christian theism is a separate issue)!  This is yet another clarification that would not need to be made if not for the fallacies and assumptions of others.

If abiogenesis was true, it would not follow that life underwent macroevolution after it came into existence from physical causes.  It does also not follow from life evolving from one form to another that a process that reduces down to abiogenesis was responsible for the existence of life.  Human and animal consciousness could spring into existence with the right arrangement of particles at least in the sense that there is no logical contradiction in such a thing, and there is also no disparity between this and any scientific observations about the correlation between neurological activity and certain mental states.  If this was true, we still do not know the veracity of macroevolution, and vice versa.

The tendency here is for evangelicals to conflate atheism with naturalism, naturalism with abiogenesis, abiogenesis with macroevolution, and macroevolution with nihilism.  Each of these concepts is actually distinct from the other even if some of them have a very specific relationship.  In other words, the concepts must be addressed on an individual basis because they do not entail the same ideas, no matter how closely linked they are according to the public.  Abiogenesis, the age of the cosmos, and macroevolution are not all necessarily true or false at the same time.

One of the relevant facts evangelicals would object to the most involves all three of the aforementioned ideas: the three of these issues combined have nothing to do with whether theism is true.  The existence of an uncaused cause is a logical necessity, meaning only the manner in which the uncaused cause permitted conscious life other than itself to come into existence is truly up in the air.  The theistic creation of the universe and abiogenesis origins of human life are not logically incompatible, regardless of what a particular religion might hold.  The issue of God's existence and the necessity of an uncaused cause behind the physical world are not directly related to the three at all.

The red herring ideas associated with macroevolution in evangelical circles exemplify just how deeply non sequiturs can be absorbed into a community without almost anyone on the inside noticing just how unrelated they are.  Even if macroevolution was philosophically falsifiable, it would still be slanderous and irrational of Christians to treat abiogenesis, an an ancient universe (with an age of billions of years old), or atheism itself as if they logically follow.  For people who claim to live out the commands of a book that condemns slander or at least to want to live them out, evangelicals often have very little comprehension of the concepts they are in a hurry to discuss.