The “origin” of the species.
BQ: Please look carefully at Figure 1-Origins, as we'll be using it, and see that it has "The Origin: For Science/Christians/History Channel." Yet the "origin" for science in the picture does not actually show an origin, but a series or progression from something already started.
Figure 1—Origins
Richard Dawkins, a famous atheist, said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”
Q: Is Dawkins able to hold to that principle?
A: Let's think about the aspects of origins. The theory of evolution proposes some mechanisms for change within a species and band-aids that with punctuated equilibrium, but it shies away from genetic entropy within genomes, refuses to adequately deal with irreducible complexities, and, when pressed, makes light of origins saying it is "not concerned with origins."
Wait! Isn't that teaching us to be satisfied with not understanding the world? Let's look at how Dawkins, since he's one of the world's foremost atheists, handles the idea of origins:
BEN STEIN: How did it get created?
DAWKINS: By a very slow process.
BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?
DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.
BEN STEIN: And what was that?
DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.
BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?
DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.
BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.
DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. ...
And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.
Do you notice that Richard Dawkins seeks to escape answering the "origin" of ANY species, and instead relies of option three, "The Origin: For History Channel?"
(PN214)