Why doesn't Evolution describe the origin of life like Creationism does?

Answer 1

The question is asking two separate things: (1) Why does Evolution not describe the origin of life? and (2) Why does Creationism explain this while Evolution does not (assuming that they are parallel "theories")?

(1) Why does Evolution not describe the origin of life?

Abiogenesis is the proper term for life coming from non-life. Evolution requires the existence of a self-replicating form to work. The development of such a form from previously non-replicating matter is outside of the scope of evolution. Therefore abiogenesis is outside of the purview of evolution.

While, as of yet, we do not know exactly how the abiogenesis event occurred, the evidence points to the fact that simple nucleotides were already bonding to each other around the time that the first self-replicating thing came into existence. The difference between these nucleotides and the self-replicating molecule would be slight. There would be no cell membrane or anything more than RNA copying itself. Due to interference from the outside, copying probably occurred with a lower rate of fidelity, leading to higher chances of random mutations. While many of those mutations may have negative or neutral, a sufficient minority would be positive. However, even so, it took over 2 billion years from the first form of recorded life to the first preserved multicellular organism. Compare this to the 100 million years required to jump from the first amphibians to the first reptiles. The time and the higher rate of mutations due to interference is what allows for the vast intracellular changes that would be necessary to produce much more complex forms of life.

(2) Why does Creationism "explain" Abiogenesis while Evolution does not?

Creationists often believe that Evolution can explain everything that Creationism can "explain"; this is simply false. Let's assume for argument's sake that Creationism actually was a theory (i.e. it made testable predictions and could adequately explain itself), then Creationism would provide answers to three main questions: (1) Formation of the Cosmos - including Earth, (2) Beginning of Life on Earth, (3) Diversity of Life on Earth. Evolution ONLY corresponds to (3), while (1) belongs to field of cosmology and the Big Bang and (2) belongs to abiogenesis. As a result, the ambit of Creationism is much more vast and "explains" things outside what Evolution can explain.

Of course, I want to make patently clear that Creationism is not actually a functional theory since it makes no testable predictions nor can it adequately explain itself.

Answer 2

As of the present date, Evolution does not and cannot explain the origin of life itself, since that violates the fact that life is not known to come from non-living things. There is, of course, speculation, but:"The concept of abiogenesis is not science. It's fantasy" (J.L. Wile, Ph.D.).

See also these links:

Is there evidence against Evolution

God's wisdom seen in His creations

More about God's wisdom

The facts

Discovering Creation

Understanding Creation