It only appears to fail because we are using examples of things that WERE designed. The electron and proton of the hydrogen combine because they get close to each other in space-time, the hydrogen atoms combines with oxygen atoms and form water just because they are close to each other in space-time. And so it goes all the way to GodGunsGuts. Everything exists because of serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature. You are simply a factory with a process control system
==Everything exists because of serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature.
Wrong. Take enzymes for instance. They are designed to facilitate cellular processes by taking specific molecules and binding them together to form new molecules. Cells cannot live without them, as they are responsible for all biological reactions. In many cases these molecules would take billions of years (or never) to chemically react if left to themselves. But enzymes make this happen in mere miliseconds. For instance, the enzyme anhydrase prevents us from suffocating by removing carbon dioxide from our blood 10 million times faster than it would on its own! These reactions cannot be explained by mass action chemistry. So much for serendipitous proximity and the laws of nature.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081111073845.htm
Once again, your argument fails.
Where did the "process control system" come from?
AND about that proximity:
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry