And it’s a good question too. Briefly, an astronomer posits that exoplanets and life got started about fifteen million years after the Big Bang. The attraction of the idea has nothing to do with plausibility. But if it were plausible, it would show that life on Earth isn’t “special.”
Why the nervous tic on the subject? First, it’s not obvious that, by itself, life (if it is indeed unique) proves that there is a God. A number of further assumptions must be made. One obvious one is that it couldn’t have happened, as some of Darwin’s followers insist, by natural selection acting on random mutation alone. Yes, that sounds implausible, but so does astronomer Loeb’s proposal.
Does the materialist assume, at heart, that his basic assumption (intelligence derives from matter) is implausible? Does he hope that a cloud of competing implausibilities will distract attention from that basic weakness? Thoughts?