BTW, did you read the paper (part I and part II) under discussion? Fascinating stuff, no?
Yes, and yes.
Seems that the non-creator view makes a lot of unsupportable assumptions about what did and did not happen.
IF, and that’s a big if, those complicating factors weren’t part of the initial conditions, then they might have a leg to stand on.
The complexity of biochemistry alone would render chance as an improbable mechanism for life to spontaneously arise. To think of the information that is coded into DNA, the complex chemical reactions in ATP and at the hormonal level to keep the individual alive, much less successfully reproducing, is mind boggling.
It doesn’t seem that the non-creation/ID side has provided sound enough evidence to support their contention that it could have arisen without an intelligent cause, which, as scientists they are bound to do to have their naturalistic explanation have any merit.
Scientists performing carefully controlled and designed experiments in the lab only support the ID/creation side. They provide NO evidence that those same chemical reactions could have happened in nature on their own.
ANYTHING they set up disproves their contention, because anything they set up is designed, by presumably intelligent scientists, even if all they do is throw stuff at random in a beaker, so to speak.