Chance v. Design Part 4 (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 08, 2009, 17:42 (5615 days ago) @ David Turell

Dr. Turell, - > > Either life came about by a discrete (die roll or coin flip) 'accident' to which all outcomes have an equal chance of being selected, or it is the result of accretion, in which processes of evolution guided these primitive stochastic systems to their ultimate forms via selection, a process that has been well documented and studied. 
> 
> I must disagree. Life occurred either by design OR by chance. - False Dilemma. As you accept the scientific method, you accept the assumption that we cannot delineate from natural and supernatural. Therefore you constrain yourself necessarily to explanations that do not invoke the supernatural. As this is the case, God either exists in the universe as simply another force (albeit one that is completely undetected) or outside of the universe in a position where he cannot interfere on more than a macroscopic scale. - In both of these possibilities, only the latter is acceptable, because as of now we have not detected any forces that have no explanation whatsoever. You might say consciousness... but we know enough about the physical processes that nothing abnormal goes on there (electricity and chemistry.) - >
The probabilities that have to be considered in order are: 1)what are the chances for this universe to appear. Penrose calculated an estimate of 10 to the minus 300 prior to the initial conditions, and 10 to the minus 123 if the initial conditions known to cosmologists were present.2) the probabilities of the Earth to be as it is allowing an attempt at life. 3) Going from non-living organic molecules to an organized group of them allowing life. (These have been calculated by legitimate scientists and I'll get the particulars for you.) 
> - The legitimacy of the scientists isn't at stake when what they're talking about is literally undefinable. Being able to attach a probability of the universe arising by chance means that you have to have some idea of the distribution of universes at large and actually *know* how they get started in the first place. We don't. We have no scientifically valid theory for explaining anything about the universe before the universe existed: so attaching a probability at that point is the definition of preposterous. (We have untestable inferences.) Furthermore, you don't need to explain the origin of the universe in order to explain the origin of life. That would be like saying we need to explain the origin of the UK by explaining why men fight. They are problems with different scopes, though related to a degree. - 
We have a better knowledge about chemistry, but your argument here seems to be "science hasn't given us a good enough theory so it must be design." But by accepting the scientific method, you also exclude a supernatural designer, as above. Even aside from that, the habitable zone in terms of our sun is from Venus to mars, and a Jupiter-like planet is also beneficial. And Jupiter-like planets are incredibly common. Furthermore, if Io ends up having a warm-water ocean under the surface the concept of a habitable zone itself is rather... "holey." - As for me, the biggest difference between my view and your view is that for some reason you seem to claim there's evidence of a designer, but the only evidence I can see you bringing is a lack of an explanation. And... that's not evidence.