Replies

I agree the argument in the article was sloppy in many ways. Chiefly it ignores the odds beating tendency of generations in natural selection that gets us to the current complexity of life.

It also ignores the fact that when calculating the odds of having arrived at a conspicuous event was simply by chance, one must add in all the other results that one would find just as conspicuous or more so. For example, if the monkey had typed "Darwin was right" or "Darwin was wrong" or "Monkeys Rule!" or many other phrases we would find conspicuous.

But the basic charge of it not being feasible to get to the first life that could start taking advantage of generation is pretty valid. As biology advanced evolutionists had anticipated that they would be able to do it in the lab. Of course we find the opposite. We find it less and less feasible as our Empirical knowledge base grows. So much so, that Abiogenesis is ASSUMED rather than DEFENDED when an evolutionary naturalist like Dawkins is pushed on the subject.

Specifically, grand assertions of overwhelming certainty are claimed for "Evolution". And this certantity is used to support Naturalism. But when one presses to the lack of evidence for Abiogenesis to be even feasible (since it can't be done in a lab--and we have no idea how to do it in a lab on purpose, and yet its maintained it happened by accident)...and clearly its a complete mischaracterization to call the evidence for Abiogenesis strong or certain....then suddenly "Evolution" does not include Abiogenesis. So we have a fallacy of equivocation here.

“grand assertions of overwhelming certainty are claimed for “Evolution””

Actually the exclusion of abiogenesis from the theory of evolution is important. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolution is supported by observations, an overwhelming number of observations in biology and paleontology.