An excellent post! I'm frequently faced with the proposition that life's initial appearance was either a divinely caused miracle, or else it had to be a "random" event; and when that alternative is presented by those objecting to even the possibility of a natural cause, the word "random" is often expressed with genuine horror. I've previously attempted to deal with the issue, and to alleviate what seems to be some kind of revulsion to the possibility of a natural process, but I never came close to the quality you've just given us.
I suspect that the issue here isn't, as one might assume, with the details of biochemistry; it's the false dichotomy of "either divinely ordained miracle or random event." My response is that the alternative to a miracle is not -- as creationists often claim -- a case of unconnected atoms from all over the universe just happening to fly together (at random) and then -- kaboomo! -- a fully-formed living organism appears. Rather, at each step of the process, the laws of physics and chemistry apply, and the process therefore isn't random at all, but is determined by natural law, and is therefore predictable, at least in principle. Given the laws of nature, one might even say that the appearance of life is inevitable. It's just that there are so many variables involved that we cannot, in practice, deal with them all to make such predictions. Your lightning strike example is along the same lines.
Anyway, thanks for a great post.
So true, PH! Yet it seems that we are glossing over important distinctions here: If all things are "determined" by natural law, what is it that "determines" natural law such that it "governs" all things? In other words, if natural law operates as a cause, what caused it? Or are we even sure that natural law is a cause? I thought it was very perceptive of Wolfhart Pannenberg (in the essay at the top of this thread) to suggest that natural laws are not themselves causes; rather they are descriptions of regularies that arise in nature as the result of contingent events that are constantly taking place (e.g., Brownian motion).
I think you're on to something when you say that "given the laws of nature, one might even say that the appearance of life is inevitable." Indeed, one might say that. But in saying it, one is suggesting a certain teleology is at work in nature, that nature seeks as its goal the rise of life. If we are speaking of nature having "goals," then what do we really mean by this? Only self-conscious beings seem to have goals. Is nature a self-conscious being? Or could it be the manifold or medium in which a supernatural consciousness works to achieve its goal or purpose?
Please note this last question is not a "religious question," strictly speaking. Though it has implications for theology, and also for a consideration of the possibility whether this universe has a metaphysical extension.