The argument, “The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution” is sometimes used by evolutionists to avoid or minimize the issue of how life originated. For example, on the web site www.talkorigins.org, which is used by many evolutionists to refute creation we read,

“The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution doesn't apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas don't work without a theory of meteorology.
Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth, and now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it.”

www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

This statement shows a logical inconsistency in their understanding of the full model of evolution. The entire model of evolution encompasses three areas:

1. Cosmological evolution: The origin of matter
2. Chemical evolution: The origin of life
3. Biological evolution: The process by which one species changes into a completely new species (referred to as macroevolution). For example, a fish evolving into an amphibian, or reptile into a bird, or an ape-like creature into a human.

There are multiple ways to respond to and demonstrate the logical inconsistency of the statement “The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution.”

Response 1:
If the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, then the biology textbooks which include the origin of life as part of the evolutionary process are wrong and we need to change what we teach in the schools. Are all these textbook writers, who likewise believe in evolution, wrong? This statement is inconsistent and shows a level of confusion among evolutionists as to what is included in the model of evolution.

Response 2:
If the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, then are we allowing for the origin of life by supernatural means? There are only two possible ways life could have originated. Either life evolved by natural processes or it was created. The suggestion of a third possible way requires that this “new” way be defined. People will make claims of other ways but never define such a method. It is more of a faith or philosophy to them. To state life originated from outer space (aliens) just pushes the problem to outer space and does not answer the question of how life originated. If the possibility of supernatural creation of life is ruled out, then the only alternative is life evolved, which contradicts the claim that it has nothing to do with evolution. At this point we need to get clarification. Is the origin of life part of the evolutionary process or not? The claim that it is part of evolution but scientists have not yet discovered how it happened simply pushes the situation to a belief by faith. As Christians, why should we abandon our faith which answers the question how life originated to another faith (evolutionism), which has no answer.

Response 3:
If the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution, we can simply agree and ask the person if they too believe that God created life. This will usually be met with disdain and a clarification of what they mean by evolution or a flip flop on what they stated. If they define evolution as meaning biological change, then they have again opened the door to supernatural creation of the universe and life by God.

Response 4:
Since there is no naturalistic explanation (empirical evidence) for how life originated then there is no foundation for the model of evolution and it must ultimately be accepted by faith. No life no biological change! Why should I accept evolution by faith when I already have a faith, which has an answer for how life originated?

Conclusion
Statements like, “The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution” demonstrates some real confusion and/or deception among evolutionists about what evolution includes and does not include. If evolution means natural processes for the origin of everything (universe, life, and biological diversity), then they need to be consistent and not ashamed to state what they believe. They should not have to resort to misleading and confusing statements. No wonder our students are so confused on the issue. The evolutionists are likewise confused.