How can you call something science which excludes logic, math, and statistical probability? Take those elements out of science categorically and you will have no reliable building blocks from which to draw any scientific conclusions. Removing them from the origins model simply means that the model is no longer scientific and that the conclusions being drawn from such a selective model are not scientific. So until someone comes up with a mathematical and statistical case of probability that is demonstrated in a repeatedly sustainable model to show life spontaneously generating from random materialistic processes that start with nothing; we should not even consider it intelligently viable.
Science does not exclude logic, math, or statistical probability. These are the very tools of science. It is the theist who misrepresents science in an attempt to justify creation by Magic.
''Both traditional creationists and intelligent design writers have invoked probability arguments in criticisms of biological evolution. They argue that certain features of biology are so fantastically improbable that they could never have been produced by a purely natural, "random" process, even assuming the billions of years of history asserted by geologists and astronomers. They often equate the hypothesis of evolution to the absurd suggestion that monkeys randomly typing at a typewriter could compose a selection from the works of Shakespeare, or that an explosion in an aerospace equipment yard could produce a working 747 airliner [Dembski1998; Foster1991; Hoyle1981; Lennox2009]. More recent studies of this genre, in an attempt to promote an "intelligent design" worldview, argue that functional biology operates on an exceedingly small subset of the space of all possible DNA sequences, and that any changes to the "computer program" of biology are, like changes to human computer programs, almost certain to make the organism non-functional [Axe2017; Marks2017].'' Fallacies in the creationist probability arguments
One major fallacy in the alpha-globin argument mentioned above, common to many others of this genre, is that it ignores the fact that a large class of alpha-globin molecules can perform the essential oxygen transfer function, so that the computation of the probability of a single instance is misleadingly remote. Indeed, most of the 141 amino acids in alpha-globin can be changed without altering the key oxygen transfer function, as can be seen by noting the great variety in alpha-globin molecules across the animal kingdom (see DNA). When one revises the calculation above, based on only 25 locations essential for the oxygen transport function (which is a generous over-estimate), one obtains 1033 fundamentally different chains, a enormous figure but incomparably smaller than 10183.
A calculation such as this can be refined further, taking into account other features of alpha-globin and its related biochemistry. Some of these calculations produce probability values even more extreme than the above. But do any of these calculations really matter? The main problem is that all such calculations, whether done accurately or not, suffer from the fatal fallacy of presuming that a structure such as human alpha-globin arose by a single all-at-once random trial event. But generating a molecule "at random" in a single shot is decidedly not the scientific hypothesis in question -- this is a creationist theory, not a scientific theory. Instead, available evidence from hundreds of published studies on the topic has demonstrated that alpha-globin arose as the end product of a long sequence of intermediate steps, each of which was biologically useful in an earlier context. See, for example, the survey article [Hardison2001], which cites 144 papers on the topic of hemoglobin evolution (note: this reference is now 17 years out of date -- many more have been published since then).
In short, the creationist-intelligent design argument claiming that scientists assert an all-at-once "at random" creation of various biomolecules, and then asserting that this is probabilistically impossible, is a classic "straw man" fallacy. Scientists do not believe this, so this line of argumentation is completely invalid. In other words, it does not matter how good or how bad the mathematics used in the analysis is, if the underlying model is a fundamentally invalid description of the phenomenon in question. Any simplistic probability calculation of evolution that does not take into account the step-by-step process by which the structure came to be is almost certainly fallacious and can easily mislead [Musgrave1998; Rosenhouse2018].
What's more, such calculations completely ignore the atomic-level biochemical processes involved, which often exhibit strong affinities for certain types of highly ordered structures. For example, molecular self-assembly occurs in DNA molecule duplication every time a cell divides. If we were to compute the chances of the formation of a human DNA molecule during meiosis, using a simple-minded probability calculation similar to that mentioned above, the result would be something on the order of one in 101,000,000,000, which is far, far beyond the possibility of "random" assemblage. Yet this process occurs many times every day in the human body and in every other plant and animal species.''
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
I have to chuckle when I read this nonsensical mumbo-jumbo because it is essentially saying that if we can exclude the logic and mathematics required by the big cosmic picture from the equation we might have a case of statistical probability for one minuscule factor. And we should exclude the big picture, because the scientific model that we arbitrarily created does not need to consider all the properties in the universe that need to align, in order for this one proposition in our model to prove itself on the basis of our selective criteria whereby we eliminated all other relevant factors.
The people that write such nonsense are either motivated by pure prejudice or they are educated beyond their intelligence--or both.
You are merely offering your opinion. An opinion that is the expression of your faith. Faith being a belief held without evidence. Sorry to be blunt.
