The responses were various, ranging from that of Art, who thought it sufficient to wave his hand and dismiss it without giving any reason, to Isaac, who actually attempted an argument against my position. So, while it is difficult to respond to hand waving (other than to wave my own hand back--Hi Art!), let me respond to Isaac's points:
First, he argues that evolution does not necessarily involve the belief in abiogenesis. To that, there are two responses: First, I did not say it did. I used the term 'Darwinism', not 'evolution'. I have explained my use of the term 'Darwinism' a number of times on this blog as referring to the belief that the current state of biological life resulted solely from prior material factors. This is distinct from the mere theory of evolution, which involves only the belief in biological development over time, regardless of how that life came about in the first place. The former involves metaphysical assumptions which its adherents expects everyone else to accept without question, and the latter, it seems to me, does not.
But it is curious to me that the video Isaac linked to, while it claims that abiogenesis is no necessary part of evolution, defends abiogenesis, as if it is. And, of course, it does so by some rather extravagant speculation. And it does make you wonder: if the people who advocate it know the procedure of how life came about from non-life as well as they seem to think they do, then they ought to be able to perform the procedure, which, of course, they can't.
Isaac says there is "very good proof" behind the doctrine of abiogenesis. But there is no "proof": there is only speculation. And just because the speculation is extravagant and even plausible on its face, it doesn't amount "proof"--at least not in any sense of the word 'proof' with which I am familiar. A proponent of parthenogenesis could simply respond that they have proof too: in form of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Undoubtedly this will not satisfy a Darwinist, but point is that the Darwinist will be at pains to explain why his "proof" for abiogenesis is any better that for parthenogenesis.
The irony, of course is still that a worldview that proposes to exclude parthenogenesis from the realm of possibility requires a strict belief in abiogenesis, about which there is an equal lack of scientific evidence.
To say that one believes in abiogenesis is a faith statement that is a part of the larger body of Darwinist dogma.
Isaac then asserts that, on the matter of the Resurrection, a "man rising from the dead has the problems of what occurs after death--enzyme breakdown, cell decay due to fermentation and decomposition (anaerobic), etc." I'm not sure that this is something that dead men spend a lot of time pondering. Actually, Isaac's point here completely misses the whole idea of what a miracle claim involves.
A miracle claim is simply immune from these kinds of criticisms--precisely because it is a miracle claim. If someone says, "I believe the normal and otherwise uniform course of nature was interfered with in Instance A," it is hardly a valid response to say, "But Instance A is problematic because it violates the normal and otherwise uniform course of nature," which, for all practical purposes is what Isaac is saying here.
The processes which he mentions as problems for the idea of a resurrection are only problems if the claim is that a resurrection occurred within the normal course of natural processes. But, of course, that is not the claim. The claim is that the normal course of nature was suspended or interfered with. To simply invoke a list of the natural problems such an event would involve doesn't address the claim.
Isaac concludes, saying:
God does not appear to suspend the laws he puts forth if he exists, and we have no reason to believe the contrary. Why then, should we state that it is so?Well, all I can say is that the religion that formed all of Western civilization has maintained for 2,000 years that that's exactly what he did--and given reasons for it.
That's why some of us say that it is so.