I answer when I have the free time. Who said these forces are accidents? I think you are conflating Evolution with....something. W He is excluded from the government. Period. Just like it should be. Irrational beliefs in a mythical sky fairy fuels sexism, bigotry and legislation like trying to get Creation taught in the public classroom as a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution. When are we going to be done with god myth and move on to addressing problems with solutions based on facts?
This could be added. I found this article about the chances of one celled organisms occurring through natural means. Abiogenesis was a long process with many small incremental steps, all governed by the non-random forces of Natural Selection and chemistry. The very first stages of abiogenesis were no more than simple self-replicating molecules, which might hardly have been called alive at all. For example, the simplest theorized self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. The probability of it forming randomly, in sequential trials, is approximately 1 in 10 to the 40th power, which is much more likely than the 1 in 10 to the 390th power claim creationists often cite. Though, to be fair, 10 to the 40th power is still a very large number. It would still take an incredibly large number of sequential trials before the peptide would form. But remember that in the prebiotic oceans of the early Earth, there would be billions of trials taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were continuously churned by the tidal forces of the moon and the harsh weather conditions of the Earth. In fact, if we assume the volume of the oceans were 10 to the 24th power liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10 to the -6M power (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10 to the 31st power self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10 to the 40th power, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed. http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
All of that is perfectly logical however, it still does not answer the basic question of why these elements behave the way they do. What is 'attraction' and why should certain elements be repelled or attracted? Why would these elements arrange themselves in such a way to create life? (If indeed it is proven). I am all for scientific study of the workings of our Universe but I'm not ready to claim we know any answers.
The answers you seek cannot be supplied by science. You can ask why gravity attracts, but the very best science can hope to demonstrate is the mechanism by which this happens. WHY it happens is philosophy. And so you can spend a lifetime learning organic chemistry, and never get any closer to a satisfactory understanding of why the periodic table is as it is, with the implied interatomic combinations being the way they are. Now, the rules of chemistry, which might as well be regarded as givens, permit life as we know it to operate, and clearly permit it to originate as well. And probably someday not too far in the future, researchers will have determined at least one pathway by which chemical reactions and feedback process can produce life. But why this should be even possible isn't within the realm of science. If you are satisfied devising some god(s) and saying that it (or they) just arbitrarily made things work that way, that's up to you. Nobody can say you're wrong.
I agree with that. Yet some do denigrate those who have a belief in some kind of intelligent design claiming they have some kind of proof of the non-existence of such an intelligence while, when asked to PROVE it they claim you can't prove a negative.
Sure there is, Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE. It's nothing more than Creation, re-pitched to sound like Science...and if you don't understand that, you need help.
You make the claim of Intelligent Design, you carry the burden of proof to support that claim. Irreducible Complexity has been shown to be a made-up concept for which there is no proof. It's simple an extension of personal incredulity.
I don't see why life can be only "evolve" in earth and can not be from above, water came into the planet during the early bombardment what if it wasn't only water? Origin of life is not the topic of evolution theory. Scientists have created RNA a very important building block of DNA .
"Intelligent Design" (as per Dembski, Johnson and others) really is just repackaged creationism. The meat of ID consists of nothing more than misguided attacks against the theory of evolution, mostly through straw-man arguments. They label somerthing no evolutionary biologist would ever suggest as "evolution" and then show that it's wrong. But there is widespread belief that some intelligent agency encouraged, guided, or otherwise assisted or is assisting in biological processes. And at some level, this is pure theology. Might be right, might be wrong, but there is not and cannot be any objective metric to use to make that determination.
I think Intelligent Design is a way to try to convey to religiophobes that just because one opens their mind to other explanations it doesn't make them a dogmatic religious fanatic. And there is no objective metric to use to make the determination that life is an accident either.
While I think your heart is in the right place here, your mind needs a bit of relocation! While many explanations are possible, scientific explanations rest on a great deal of evidence, experimentation, and methodical process. The result is that scientific explanations explain things. Intelligent design is not an explanation in the scientific sense - it's not based on any evidence or any experimentation, it does no research, it is composed of either non-testable assertions, or assertions resoundingly proven to be false. Leave out the falsehoods, and all that's left is theological navel-gazing. But there are plenty of objective metrics to show that abiogenesis is possible. Enough so that there are several very active and fruitful research projects looking at various hypothetical pathways, and making some considerable progress. Now, of course these projects can never demonstrate that there is no invisible all-powerful indetectible force or agency controlling reality in real time so as to facilitate or enable or direct these processes, making them non-accidental. But Intelligent Design is generally more than the assertion that such guidance happens even though it is in principle impossible to rule in or out. Instead, Intelligent Design (as currently practiced) is an effort to show that current evolutionary theory is somehow wrong, and that therefore Magical Design wins by default. And here, ID runs into two serious problems. The first is that all efforts to show the current theory is wrong have been resoundingly refuted, most of them so many times they are called PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). The second is that EVEN IF the theory of evolution is wrong, that doesn't automatically make any other speculation correct. There is NO DEFAULT. ID is like saying "evolution claims 2+2=17, and ID claims 2+2=56. We can show that the answer isn't 17, and therefore it must be 56! And this canard is repeated no matter how many times no matter how many people show that 17 is a nonsense number no evolutionary biologist ever suggested or would agree with.
What "nothing is" is a philosophical question as from a scientific perspective it's merely the absence of something. Yes, there can be speculation about "intelligent design" or "creationism" but only from a philosophical perspective as there are no grounds for it based upon the scientific method. Before being able to address it from a scientific standpoint there would have to be either evidence or a theory of a super-entity that would have the power to create the universe and life in the universe but the evidence and theory don't exist. Even with a "super-entity theory" it would require a "theory of creation" to explain how such an entity would accomplish the creation of the universe or of life. Science systematically builds knowledge one-step at a time but there isn't a "super-entity theory" that would be required from a scientific standpoint as a starting block upon which to build doesn't exist. We don't even have a foundation for a "super-entity theory" because no evidence exists that would provide a foundation for the theory. Remember that scientific theory attempts to explain what we see in nature but there is no evidence of a super-entity in nature that would provide a foundation for the "super-entity theory" from a scientific standpoint.
Actually it's based 100% upon straw-man arguments developed to convince ignorant people. ID/Creationism, as noted, don't actually make any supportive arguments for creationism/ID.
