Interesting how the goal post moves.
What are you talking about?
Better snatch this before it disappears. As per
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
"In
evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),[3][4][5][a] is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[6][4][7][8]...."
I disagree with this wiki quote.
Evolutionary biology studies already existing life. It does not study the origins of life.
Evolution theory does make some
predictions about first life though. As in, if first life would have been, for example, a multi-cellular organism, let's say a fly, then that would not fit with evolution theory.
But it says nothing about the specifics of the process that originated life.
Abiogenesis is the field of inquiry of the origins of life. There are several abiogenesis hypothesis that are being explored. It's an open question.
Yes, all these hypothesis are naturalistic in nature. They look for a natural process.
But that is not because evolutionary biology demands it to be so.
What branch of science exists in a vacuum?
None, but however first life originated, it won't make all the evidence of evolution go away.
Life exists and we can study it. Through that study, we might get clues about its origins, sure.
Just like how evolution theory does make some predictions about first life. It predicts something very simple, since it posits that the complexity of life has evolved through the process of evolution.
That it need not be consistent with any other scientific endeavour?
Sure.
If the origins of life turns out to be a god creating the first simple life form, then that is perfectly consistent with evolution theory.
Can I take it to mean you believe the evolutionary process not the theory (whatever that means)?
I don't understand this question.
The theory is a description of the process.
If the question is "how do plants generate their food?" sure. But if the question is "how was the atmosphere generated?" then no.
Now who's moving the goal post?
I don't even know what you mean with that second question, and I know even less where it came from.
Oversimplification usually indicates agenda, not truth.
Sometimes things are just simplified to illuminate the actual point that is being misunderstood.
So may I infer you see evolution not as a theory but a process (conjecture)?
You make no sense.
The process factually occurs:
- individuals compete over limited resources
- they reproduce with variation / genetic change
- this variation makes the offspring either better equipped to compete, lesser equipped or it makes no difference
- the better equipped will generally spread their genes as they are more successful at survival and breeding
All that is factually obvservable.
The theory is the body of explanation that details how that process, and its subprocesses, actually work.
Like I said no theory exists in a vacuum. If you find one, let me know. I would be curious to study it.
Nobody said otherwise.
What HAVE said, is that theories have
scope. They address a
specific set of facts. And while they need to fit into the bigger picture next to other theories, they only address their own specific set of facts.
So while you could probably link up germ theory with theories about climate in the matrix of reality, germ theory does not need to be able to explain weather patterns.