Quote:
Originally Posted by Yorick
Very good point FSA.
One thing I'll point out, is that the odds of life spontaneously developing are like tossing a coin, and having it land on it's side. OR winning the lottery 20 times in a row. Theoretical probabilities, not one's we'd likely see.
Now, what would happen if someone won the lottery 20 times in a row?
We'd presume the lottery was rigged!
HEY! Life starting was rigged! Someone was behind it fuddling the numbers!
|
While I don't think that's a fair argument (the odds of winnng the lottery are about the same as a coinflip ending tails-up 30 times in a row, so the tosser must be throwing to favour a specific outcome, therefore the person winning the lottery was hand-picked in advance), I would agree that you can't expect a puddle of base ingredients to spontaneously form into a functioning cell. That leads to the assumption that cells were either assembled on purpose or there are other steps of life or half-life preceding this most basic of organisms.
The RNA world hypothesis offers one suggestion, although the chances of RNA chains spontaneously materializing are not much greater - so it wouldn't be the first step either.
Being able to create a cell-like object in a laboratory doesn't do much to prove the ToE, but it does show that life can start from the right base materials under the right conditions. Yes, there's a scientist mixing and matching all the components - but perhaps it can be shown the conditions which worked for him appear(ed) naturally as well.
You might ask who created the conditions in the first place, of course. Why does the world seem to abide by, among many others, Newtonian laws, or why is there a gravity to begin with? Did some presence think up all these things in advance or did they stick around as a byproduct of the environment in which life was created? Do they apply omniversally, superceding the influence of any deity, or is it just that they are, period?
Personally I don't have faith in a higher being, though I don't trust science to explain it all either. Science might describe a process, and provide an explanation which makes sense in that the same principle applies in related fields as well, but deep enough down it won't tell you why things are the way they are. The question is if you really need to know.
I wouldn't name myself an atheist for the simple reason that I don't disbelieve the presence of deities any more than I believe they are around - but if they are more than a name for certain personal beliefs, brain workings and an attitude towards life, I've not recognized it.
And of course, for me the arguments which suggest we were created by one or more greater beings does nothing to prove they are benevolent or malicious, true to the word of one holy text or another, or nothing like anything at all.
Luckily, it doesn't leave me without morals or compassion, nor do I feel isolated, cursed with disproportionate misfortune or anything of the sort. Perhaps you could say I've never felt the need to believe - or dismiss divinity outright.