The Postulation of a Designer (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Wednesday, February 06, 2008, 18:35 (5924 days ago)

In my response to dhw in the "Teapot Agnosticism" thread I concluded, referring to the combinatorial chemical processes that seem likely to have led to the first replicating systems: "The postulation of a "designer" to guide these processes is just so over-the-top in improbabilities as not to be worth considering." - Peter P. in the "Origin of Life" thread now says: "Let me get this straight. It's your belief that life originated by accident." I thought I'd made it quite clear that my view is that the most likely explanation of the orign of life (abiogenesis) is in a step-by-step process, probably including some "accidents" (e.g. two chemicals happening to come into contact and combining or reacting to produce a result that has not previously occurred) but also involving physical and chemical processes determined by the usual physical and chemical forces. I don't think "life originated by accident" is an accurate precis of that! - The process above described needs no other postulations or assumptions than the existing state of knowledge of physics and chemistry. - The alternative hypothesis being put forward is that the earliest replicating systems did not arise by the natural processes outlined above, but were carried out by the deliberate interventions of a "designer". But how exactly this designer acted is unclear. Did he just say "Let there be Life!" and Lo there was Life and it was Good, "Just Like That!", sheer Magic? Or did he dip his noodly apendages into the chemical mess and deliberately move some atoms around so that the necessary "accidents" could occur? Or is it sacrilege to enquire into His Holy Methods?