You underestimate the supposed role of randomness in evolution and science in general. The universe itself is supposedly the product of a random explosion. Hence, my phrasing, "that all of this occured randomly".
From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.
Your objection to the answers that science offers is completely incoherent. So because science doesn't have an explanation for the origin of the big bang, you consider it on the same level as intelligent design? This is absurdly muddled thinking on your part. Science does have a very thorough and logical explanation for these "insanely intricate and complex life forms" btw. None of this is particularly mysterious now. There are some details that are still being filled in, but to act like we are in complete ignorance of how these life forms could come about is just flat out wrong.
"Incoherent", yet you were able to offer a rebuttal? You don't see the contadiction there? I think it would have been more accurate to state that you simply disagree.
And, "none of this is particularly mysterious now"? Are you kidding me? The origin of life and the known universe, and the spark that sparked the spark are all just mundane, settled science now, eh? I think it's time you held a press conference.
In any event, you are making my point with your blind adherence to scientific dogma. First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness. Huge difference and if you look at the OP, that is what is being claimed as if it's scientific fact. And, that is why I take exception. If science doesn't know yet, then fine. But, don't offer up a weak non-answer, base the entirety of its theory on it, then take a giant dump on the heads of those who point out that the emperor has no clothes.
So, my point is that there is nothing qualitatively superior about your randomness belief versus one of intelligent design (your knee jerk response notwithstanding). And, I challenge you to prove otherwise.
In fact, I (and many respected scientists) believe that the randomness argument is actually far inferior in the face of empirical evidence. It is much more plausible that there is some force behind creation beyond what we understand than it is to believe that fundamental laws of thermodynamics were broken in some random event to create our Universe.
So, you know, it's cool to believe what you believe, but let's not act all superior when the whole of your fundamental argument rests on "randomness", which is simply a thinly veiled "I don't know".
>First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness.
As I already stated, this is just flat out wrong. You cannot even do the argument you claim to be against even a modicum of justice. If you have something specific that you disagree with, I would try to provide an answer or point you in the right direction. However, I'm not going to tap out a dissertation for someone who is clearly woefully ignorant of even the basics. For starters, the question of the origin of the universe, of abiogenesis, and of the evolution of life are completely separate questions. You reveal yourself to be completely misinformed when you conflate these three separate issues.
But yeah, keep on beating that "randomness" strawman to a pulp. Feel free to offer specific questions if you want to actually engage in a conversation. But make no mistake, nothing you have said so far shows even the faintest understanding of what you claim to be against.
Nowhere did I conflate the two. In fact, I identified them as separate instances wherein scientists insert randomness as the catch-all answer. Read more carefully.
And now randomness is the "strawman"? Funny, randomness was my actual point from the start. Now you want to jump in and declare a subject change, drawing distinctions between evolution and abiogenesis? Looks like that's the strawman here.
Anyway, I do think that randomness as the linchpin for the creation of the universe is far more interesting and revealing. I mean, after all a theory of the creation of everything we know that leaves out the actual creation part is pretty rich. So, if you need to choose one, then feel free to choose that one.
And, the question was very specific as presented. I will even give you a "head-start" and assume that the Big Bang is true and that everything that followed (per what the current state of science tells us) is complete and true.
So the question is two-fold: how is the random explanation of the creation impetus qualitatively superior to one of intelligent design? How is it any more certain?
>Nowhere did I conflate the two. In fact, I identified them as separate instances wherein scientists insert randomness as the catch-all answer.
Not in this comment chain you didn't.
>I do think that randomness as the linchpin for the creation of the universe is far more interesting and revealing
I don't know of any scientific theory that claims this to be true. This is the strawman you keep proclaiming to the be great scientific answer to all of life's greatest questions. I'm here to tell you that it ain't.
Let's make a distinction between speculation about, say, the cause of the big bang, and actual scientific theories. There is no scientific theory that relies on "randomness" as the explanation for how a thing occurred (I'm not counting QM and its probability distributions here). Random mutation is a component of evolution, or the random reaction of molecules to form the first autocatalyzing molecule, but these are small parts of the whole story. The difference between scientific theories and Intelligent Design is that the former knows when to say "we don't know" while the latter drops a godidit and calls it a day. Just from this statement alone we see why the answers science provides are inherently superior.
>There is no scientific theory that relies on "randomness" as the explanation for how a thing occurred
The Big Bang itself posits randomness as the very catalyst. And, while randomness is only part of the evolutionary process, it is also the catalyst for the first life forms. But, here you are saying that the whole of these scientific theories resting on these random events is irrelevant.
And, these events are the events. These are creation theories that literally omit the actual creation part. "This explosion occured, but it was random. These molecules formed randomly, then evolved, blah, blah, blah."
Someone higher up on this thread referenced the quote, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else."
That is exactly what science and you are doing at this point. Except you are unwilling to admit that you're asking for the free miracle. That, or you are comically attempting to downplay the significance. I can't tell which.
I asked you very specifically about the role of randomness as the catalyst vs there being an intelligent impetus. You quickly attempted to dismiss the very catalyst as an unimportant part of the theory, then shifted gears to evolution and claimed victory.
Science does not say "we don't know" in these cases. Period. Your repeating it doesn't make it so. No need to continue this discussion when you are unwilling to acknowledge reality. You are so focused on attempting to appear intellectually superior that you cannot assemble a cogent argument, because you cannot acknowledge where you have overstated something or could be wrong. So, you are now effectively saying "up is down and down is up. See, there, I have won the debate".
>The Big Bang itself posits randomness as the very catalyst.
This is what I mean, you're not even getting the basic right. The Big Bang Theory says nothing about what initiated it. The theory begins microseconds after the initial event that triggered the expansion of the universe. Seriously, look it up. You will be surprised. Also, there is no scientific theory regarding the origin or the initiating event of the Big Bang. This is what I refer to when I say that science says "we don't know".
>I asked you very specifically about the role of randomness as the catalyst vs there being an intelligent impetus.
Here, I'll answer this right now. The question can be broken down to: which is more probable, that a self-catalyzing molecule formed randomly or that an intelligent being created life in the form that we see today (if it were just going to use evolution then that intelligent being brings nothing to the table).
Well, assuming a god-like entity, it would require a near infinite level of complexity, all of which must have come from somewhere. Thus we are making massive assumptions, all of which reduce the probability of this event in proportion.
Now lets consider the self-catalyzing molecule. We know that chains of amino acids form spontaneously. We don't know what such a self-catalyzing molecule would look like, or how many units it would need to do its job. Thus we don't know the probability of it forming spontaneously. But it's certainly less than the probability of an infinitely powerful god-like (from our perspective) creature. Further, lets consider that perhaps the whole of the earth was filled with these building-block molecules, and thus the potential for this unlikely reaction was playing out in millions or billings of locations simultaneously and continuously. I think its pretty clear at this point the relative likelihood of the two events in question. Once the self-replicating molecule formed, the primordial environment would exponentially fill with this molecule, the process of evolution by natural selection takes hold and thus the process of increasing complexity is self-sustaining.
From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.