In the general realm of food for thought, here is a question for pondering if you have an open mind and you’re considering the merits of evolution as the explanation for the universe, life, and stuff.
Evolution, to be proven as fact, must rest upon a dual foundation. It must provide a satisfying answer to two fundamental questions. They are simple, basic questions. And they are:
1. How did life originate?
2. Then, how did life proliferate into such astonishing diversity and complexity?
Many people wrongly assume that evolution answers both questions because they are essentially different sides of the same coin. That isn’t how scientists view it. To them, they are two very different questions.
Both questions are extremely difficult to answer with conclusive proof, without extensive theorizing and conjecture. Even so, both have a lot in common, and their common ground can be described with one word: accidents. Life originated through a series of fortunate accidents. That must be a given to accept evolution. Fair enough. Then, by means of further favorable chance events that would have to be numbered in incomprehensibly great quantities (along with, it must be argued, a number of unfavorable and unfortunate backward steps that would outnumber the fortunate accidents by trillions to one – such being the nature of random chance), the result was hummingbirds, lemons, giraffes, bees, sharks, cows, butterflies, sequoias, lizards, bacteria, apples, earthworms, jellyfish, humans, and hundreds of thousands of other life forms.
Considering the sheer numbers alone, does that seem reasonable to you? Considering the amazing complexity and sophistication found in the natural world at every level, does accident and random chance seem like a satisfying and believable explanation for their origin?