Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Astonishing! Astrophysicist determines that the odds are against a random origin of life


His approach assumes an RNA world origin for life:

In the study, Tomonori Totani, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Tokyo, modeled the microscopic world of molecules across the epic scale of the entire universe to see if abiogenesis is a likely candidate for the origin of life. He was essentially looking at whether there were enough stars with habitable planets in the universe at the time to allow complexity to arise. His results, published Feb. 3 in the journal Nature, show the betting odds for life emerging are not good, at least for the observable universe.

“I hoped to find at least one realistic path of abiogenesis, to explain abiogenesis by words of science,” Totani told Live Science. “Sometimes people claim that abiogenesis probability is incredibly low and that the origin of life cannot be understood by science. I, as a scientist, dreamed to find a scientific explanation of why we are here.”

Tim Childers, “Is life a gamble? Scientist models universe to find out” at Space.com

Paper. (open access)

What’s astonishing is that he is thinking about odds at all. Odds means probability and probability means an aspect of reality—we are used to Darwinists burbling on about, essentially, magic.

One might ask why he thinks that “science” must find a random origin for life. Who decided that life originated randomly? What if it did not? Is science still committed to finding a random origin?

See also: Welcome to “RNA world,” the five-star hotel of origin-of-life theories

If a naturalist/materialist can’t explain the origin of life then all bets are off. You can’t make the claim that life is the result of natural causes. However, the bad news doesn’t end there… Again, without a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life how is any form of naturalism philosophically tenable? “We’re working on it” is not an explanation, it’s a rationalization, but you have to be both intellectually and ethically honest to admit that. Those who believe in the naturalistic origin of life don’t even have a good analogy of how it’s possible. I do from an ID perspective: self-replicating von Neumann machines. I go into the idea more here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/guest-post-dr-ys-intelligent-design-and-arguments-against-it/#comment-688049 john_a_designer
seversky @1 randomunguidednaturalprocessdidit ? how ? martin_r
Sev- So Goddidit, well maybe, maybe not,if you think not please refute the work of professor Totani and show some evidence why you believe naturedidit. If you are honest you will admit that up to this point science has yet to provide any reasonable evidence for the natureditit position, apart from the default nature is all there is, so nature must have done it . So Sev at best you should be Agnostic and at least admit if nature did not do it ,there is least a possibility God did actually do it. Marfin
Seversky @ 1 asks how God did it, since science continues to fail. Remove your bias on what you believe about God and do not humanize God. The laws of physics cannot be explained without design of the universe prior to the universe becoming what it is now. Mathematics are discoveries of formulas that already exist. The removal of God has not yielded a single working theory of life from no life. Perhaps the question you should be asking is how could anything else have brought about the universe? BobRyan
Sev, taking a break from constructing apologies for the FBI waging war on children? Barry Arrington
So Goddidit? How? Seversky

Leave a Reply