I am not sure what you are referring to. To the fact that people use the term "Chance" to explain the universe, or my statement that they do so.
If the first, of course. If the second. No. You are wrong. I've been in long conversations with many people who blindly believe in evolution. And you will realize that's what it is, a blind belief because when you start pointing out scientific facts to them, over and over and over again I have had many people excuse it all away to chance.
For example the chance of one human protein folding onto itself correctly is 1 in a billion billion billion (10^27). And there are around 50,000 human proteins. The chances of just one folding onto itself correctly by chance, you would need not an primordial soup the size of the earth, but the size of the universe, and then you would still need billions times billions of years. The young age of our universe, only 13.8 billion years old would not nearly give us enough time for one single human protein to fold onto itself correctly by chance. But we are told it would happen over and over dozens of thousands of times, along with so many other things. Such as the formation at the exact instant of time of DNA and RNA and all the proteins needed. For if you don't have any one of the components the human cell does not exist and does not reproduce. This is called irreducible complexity. Where you need several complex components all happening at the exact same instant, all with their mind-boggling complex components in order for it to have existed and continued.
Yeah, but you don't' understand that is chance. It is all chance. Chance, blind chance. I've heard it over and over and over. It all boils down to blind chance, a chance far far far more fantastical and fairy-like than the proof and observable evidence of an intelligence behind the written code in life. DNA is an alphabet in digital code that, for example, in the human cell, written out would fill encyclopedias the size of the Grand Canyon. The code does not code itself or attribute to itself meaning. The coder has to. But it all happened by blind chance.
Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.
The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.
This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.
People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.
Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?
The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of blind belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's an intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask: is the intelligent designer God? So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.
Well if you look at things objectively, life always only comes from previous life. That is the only scientific fact we can draw on. Never anywhere has life been shown to originate from non-life. Never anywhere has intelligence ever been seen to develop from nonintelligence. And something cannot come from nothing. Or perhaps you are like the adherents to Dawkins "nothing is something."
You mention “Evolution”, but what you are attempting to describe (but completely failing to understand what you are describing), has more to do with Abiogenesis, not Evolution.
AND this is your failing part: Abiogenesis NEVER describe that life come from “nothing”.
Not only you don’t understand biochemistry behind proteins and nucleic acids (DNA & RNA), judging by what I have been reading from your 2 replies, you don’t chemistry PERIOD behind biochemistry.
Biochemistry is still chemistry.
The building blocks to any form of proteins, are specific types of amino acids.
What I mean by “specific types” is that of the over 500 types of amino acids that exist, only 20 occur naturally in proteins.
The type of protein and the specific functions that each protein may have, is dependent on the type of chain of amino acids or the sequencing of amino acids.
As to “folding” of the proteins, these occur to natural properties of amino acids, and not folded due any sentient being designing the “folds”.
As to Irreducible Complexity (IC), it has never been hypothesis, because Michael Behe has never made his IC falsifiable, let alone tested.
That you would even bring up Irreducible Complexity, when he has admitted back in 2005, that there are no evidence for IC, because he admitted that his so-called data are based on computer simulations of IC.
His computer simulations are not based data collected from any physical evidence, so essentially, Behe made up - “invented” evidence that don’t exist.
You talk of their being no evidence for Evolution and no evidence for Abiogenesis, and yet you rely on Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, which have zero evidence, that dishonest double standard...it is “dishonest”, because there are no evidence to speak of in Irreducible Complexity, and Behe admitted there are no evidence for Intelligent Design too.
Read the following Behe’s answers, during his cross-examination in the Kitzmiller vs Dover case (2005):
“transcript of Michael Behe in Kitzmiller vs Dover” said:
Q. [Rothschild] Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?
A. [Michael Behe] No, I argued for it in my book.
Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?
A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.
No “peer review”, no “pertinent experiments or calculations”, and in his own book (Darwin’s Black Box), no “new data or original research”,
@Eyes to See. Meaning there was never any evidence for Intelligent Design.
Behe made an excuse, that he “generate an attempt at an explanation”, but an attempt at explanation, not backed by observations and evidence, is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions or speculation.
There are evidence for Evolution, and there are even evidence for Abiogenesis, but there are none for Intelligent Design and no for Irreducible Complexity, and yet you have already accepted that ID & IC being true, just demonstrated that you are biased and have no interests in science backed by evidence.
Seriously, the article covers it from both sides. The real take away for me is that we don't really know that much about dark matter. In general, I think that sums up the situation. Lot's of uncertainty.
