James Tour tackles the origin of information

Richard Fenyman told the story of his encounter with a painter who assured him that he could create yellow paint by mixing red and white. Anti-IDists say the same sort of thing about the power of inanimate chemical interactions. If those elements are mixed together long enough, supposedly, life will emerge. But like the red and white paint, we mix and only get various shades of pink, never yellow. The anti-IDist tells us "just being baffled by this actual outcome is not a reliable test of whether something could happen or not." No, certainly. Keep mixing the red and white and maybe yellow will emerge. However, Fenyman's painter finally explained how he could prove his claim: "Just add some yellow paint". Silver Asiatic

"Either life arose from inanimate chemical interactions or through some intelligent agency." True. For now, I say this: Fly with settled peer reviewed science. In other words, fly with Number 2, "Some Intelligent Agency". Settled-Science-wise you can check all the boxes. It 's consistent with all of an extensive body of peer reviewed empirical, obtained over the past 100 years. It can be falsified, (by making, just once, life in a lab) but it has never been falsified in spite of a major international effort by top gurus including Nobel Prize winners. If that doesn't make it Settled Science, what would? No 1 "Inanimate chemical interactions" is possible. But it is pseudo science, because it is not consistent with any peer reviewed evidence, and it is impossible to falsify. Settled Science wise, its a strike out. Which is one reason why Scientists like it so much. A million years from now they can still be milking their NSF Origin of Life Research Grants, and nobody will be able to show their theory is wrong. As far as the nature of the intelligent agent, it is an interesting question but unnecessary to answer it before resolving the dichotomy. Any half-wit can figure the answer Its God. Just don't say it out loud. Federal Judges say that telling people that God created the first life is against the Constitution because of the First Amendment, which is Freedom of Speech TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

“ If inanimate chemical interactions are so improbable that it is inconceivable that life could have arisen from them...” IF? Tell us you believe inanimate chemical interactions created life, then we will have done with you and your jejune arrogance. Belfast

"If inanimate chemical interactions are so improbable that it is inconceivable that life could have arisen from them, then explain the origins of this creative intelligent agency that you prefer that is in any way less improbable." The assumption is that the creativity is embedded in physicality. If that were true, you would have a point. If mind precedes matter, you do not. johnnyb

(1) First of all, ID *is* about the origin of life, whether or not Darwinism is or not. (2) It seems to be the Darwinists who are most interested in a non-ID origin of life. So, even if they are separable subjects, the sociology is mostly identical. (3) However, when you look deep enough, common descent actually relies on being able to judge information about the origin of life. I.e., if I have two similar organisms, how do you know that they share a lineage vs. they just appeared fully-formed? At least an outline of an origin-of-life theory would be required to make such a judgement in absences of actual historical data. Thus, common ancestry actually hinges on origin-of-life theory in a non-trivial way. I did a more full UD writeup of point #3 a long time ago here. johnnyb

Seversky wrote:

If inanimate chemical interactions are so improbable that it is inconceivable that life could have arisen from them, then explain the origins of this creative intelligent agency that you prefer that is in any way less improbable.

Sure, no problem. This "creative intelligent agency" created space and time among other things. It's hard for most people to grasp that time did not exist before the Big Bang. Thus, if time did not exist, there is no "before" and the chain of causality is broken. Do you get it now? -Q Querius

And only a fool would think that ID needs to explain anything about the Designer. We study what we can observe. We cannot observe the designer, so we cannot study the designer, so we don't know if said designer had an origin. ET

Earth to seversky: How life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. It is only if blind and mindless processes produced life in the first place that we would infer its subsequent evolution occurred via blind and mindless processes. And seeing that concept has been falsified, you lose. An intelligently designed OoL means that life was intelligently designed with the information and ability to evolve and adapt. Telic processes rule but accidents, errors and mistakes still occur. ET

You have a choice. Either life arose from inanimate chemical interactions or through some intelligent agency. If inanimate chemical interactions are so improbable that it is inconceivable that life could have arisen from them, then explain the origins of this creative intelligent agency that you prefer that is in any way less improbable. Seversky

To be part of the anti-ID mob requires denial and willful ignorance. So it's easy. You never have to support anything. ET

It baffles me but then there's a lot that baffles me. Just like the rest of you. Human bafflement is not a reliable test of whether something could happen or not. Oh, and one more time, theory of evolution, neither Darwin's original nor its later expansions, are about the origins of life. Seversky

WJM... i watched all 13 parts of the OOL lecture. I always knew that Darwinists are cheaters... but after watching this, Darwinists look more like hoaxers... or conspiracy theorists martin_r

Agreed, WJM. The atheist/materialist knows, or should know by now, that nature is incapable of creating life on its own. A transcendent Intelligence is required. A transcendent Mind is required. God is required. Truth Will Set You Free

It's detailed videos like this that leave me baffled as to how anyone can believe the "chance interaction of chemicals" theory of the origin of life. William J Murray