---

It seems that while I was away for Easter, somebody has resurrected that tired old argument that life is simply too improbable to have arisen by chance. Now, in one sense, I have to agree, that the previous history of our world should lead to this particular points is pretty unlikely; after all, it's only one possible outcome among many equally probable ones. If somebody asked me what do you get when you leave a dead planet alone for 4.5 billion years, the GameBoy would probably not be my answer. But *any* state would just be one out of many improbable ones. Hint. "Pick a number between 1 and 10". "3.5". "Wow, you picked that one out of infinitely many possibilities! It can't have been chance, God must have made you do it!" There's another perspective that makes the argument even more obviously ludicrous. Recall the argument. "I find it impossible to believe that life could just arise by chance. I therefore believe that (by chance?) there happens to be an omnipotent omniscient God who just happened to create it in this particular form out of all the possible ones." Now, why on earth should I see the existence of a God who just happens to create life the way we see it as more probable than the life just happening to arise? To my mind, it seems as if more argument is needed to explain the existence of an infinitely complex creator than that of finitely complex organic goop. It is more parsimonious to assume that things just fell together than to assume that there just happened to exist for no apparent reason something capable of sticking it together.

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank