It is more reasonable to conclude that organic life was designed by an intelligent agent than arise by chance or accident.
The more they have learned about cells, more and more scientists, such as Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Stephen Meyer, are coming out stating it is reasonable to conclude cells were designed. They based that on what they do know, not on what they don't know. And they arrive at that conclusion using scientific methods.
Dr. Meyer states:
"Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation … chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause. For this reason, the biology of the information age now requires a new science of design.
(Stephen C. Meyer, Mere Creation, pg. 140).
"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."
(Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs)
"Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter."
(Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Where did all the coded information in DNA come from?
From Yockey: “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”
Yockey said (2005) “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” But they don’t.
Are codes used as a metaphor or analogy in Biology?
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey , the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, CODE, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, METAPHORS, or ANALOGIES.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology:
"A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79)
We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.
This is argument based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method - which uses inference and induction - we have every reason to believe DNA is designed.
100% of our real world observations tells us that ALL codes ALWAYS originate via mental processes. Without exception. We have not one single counter example. While at the same time we have 0% observation of codes comming from unintelligent processes. Zero. Notta. El'zillcho. So EVERYTHING we KNOW empirically is that codes ALWAYS come via mental processes.
If you reject the inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.
If you reject the inference to design then there shouldn't be a discipline called Forensic Science or Archaeology.
The more scientists have learned about the cell the more they have given up on the reality of abiogenesis because on how incredibly complex and sophisticated it is. Scientists have said it themselves:
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(Bruce Alberts , President, National; Academy of Sciences "The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines," Cell 92, February 8, 1998)
"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
(Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)
"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box"
(Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252")
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
(Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)
"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
(Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg , pg. 20.)
"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."
(Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica . If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
(George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."
(Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them. This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being. And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms. The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
(G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.)
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."
(R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on earth, New York: Bantam Books, 1986, pp. 227-228.)
"It is still to be demonstrated how these essential molecules, such as haemoglobin, chlorophyll and other proteins and nucleic acids were formed. But even if we were to allow a primeval soup to have existed for the full history of the Earth (4,000-4,500 million years), complex proteins and nucleic-acid molecules could never have been produced by random, chance interactions. However, here are you and I on Earth today. And the evidence of the fossil record shows that some sequence of events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small. What is more, from out understanding of the possible processes leading to the origin of life and the critical part played by living organisms in the development processes, the transition from non-living to living matter probably occurred only once and could have occurred only once. The origin of life was an almost utterly improbable event with almost impossible odds against a chance happening But life did originate. So was it by chance? Or was it by design and control?"
(Brooks, Jim [geochemist, former Vice-President, Geological Society], "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, p.87).
So we have scientists who say, in essence, it is highly, highly unlikely for organice life to form by chance and we have scientists who say it is highly, highly likely that it was designed.
So why do you still believe life came about accident or chance rather than by design?