Is the concept of chance at the origin of life really scientific?

Answer

It is a common misconception that ‘coincidence’ or ‘randomness’ in the origin and evolution of life makes scientific hypotheses about it less likely (see the link on neutral evolution).

Although chance plays a role in the hypotheses about the origin of life, these hypotheses are nevertheless mainly based on physical, chemical and biological processes (the latter in the sense of selection), laws and the state and composition of the world/place in which the first life arose. In addition, at times there are different routes that life could have followed, of which logically only one has been taken (in which ‘coincidence’ will have played a role), but all these routes nevertheless follow the aforementioned laws, so that it cannot be said that they fall outside science.

The idea that chance points to the existence of a transcendent force is in itself a contradiction, since the existence of a “transcendent force” would imply that it has a motivation that distinguishes it from “genuine randomness” and that it follows a pattern. Such a pattern, which could not be explained on the basis of the aforementioned laws, has not yet been observed (scientifically). If this means that the motivations of the transcendental force are beyond our perception to such an extent that hypotheses about this cannot be scientifically tested, then it means that this issue cannot be investigated in a scientific context and can therefore only be philosophized about. become.