THE IDEA that you can come up with an immensely improbable estimate for God creating life only shows that you want to misuse a materialist set of condition for testing the probability of a religious proposition.
If you saw a large, high, neatly stacked pile of wood, the logs having been sawed to a uniform length and tried to come up with a materialistic explanation of it, the probabilities against it happening as it did would be enormous. If you tried to come up with an explanation that a person cut the logs to a measured length and then stacked them, you wouldn't need to go through the gyrations and acts of imagination that the materialist would to come up with their explanation. When you're talking about the theorized original organism from which all subsequent life descended, you're talking about something like that, you don't get aeons of time in which a jillion probablistic what-ifs could work themselves out, you don't get trial and error to explain that one success, you get something more like trying to figure out where a stack of wood comes from. Only it's a far harder thing to figure out how it could have just happened by random chance than explaining how a stack of uniform length pieces of sawed logs came to be there.
The original organism wouldn't have gotten second chances, never mind the number that your demi-god of trial-and-error would need, it was a living being that had to maintain its and its descendants lives as it did all of those things I noted were needed and, no doubt, many others and to have gotten them right the first time or it would have been the end of life on Earth as well as its beginning.
You aren't required to believe God did it but the explanation that God did it is far more elegant and simple with far more explanatory power (things that those wanting to argue for seemingly scientific explanations always insist on as determinative) than the insistence that it must have happened by chance against an enormous improbability that it was done without intelligent design. It's not surprising that so many people find it easier to imagine for that reason and there's nothing intellectually wrong with people believing that. Without evidence of it happening by random chance, the improbability of it happening that way is a sound intellectual observation.
I've got to do some weeding.
Update: You must be fairly new reading here. I've dealt with the experimental artificial "DNA" that is self replicating by pointing out that it was created by the intelligent design of the scientists who manufactured it, what they showed was that it could be done with intelligent design, they can't prove by their experiment that it was done without that in the ancient past. It is ironic that it was in thinking about that and the "RNA world" nonsense that was a recent fad in abiogenesis that I concluded it was irrational to believe the original organism would have had just found or had either of those molecules in it because of the complexity of the molecules, themselves, but, also that neither of them can work without a very complex intercellular chemistry allowing it to happen, which, if present in the original organism when it first reproduced would, I insist, make the attribution of it to divine intention far stronger. The improbability of such complexity just happnin' by random chance is enormously greater than that God did it.
No comments:
Post a Comment