Atheism 4.Chance and Life

The idea in creationists mind that life arose by chance and that this is somehow incredible seems to be due to two basic fallacies - 1.That chance and/or randomness does not have a creative capacity and lead to entropy. 2.That they understand chance and statistics and are thus making reasonable asserations of how unlikely it was life arose of it's own volition without being created. First of all, we already know that DNA is able to self-replicate and we have some idea of how it came to be able to do this - all of which does NOT entail any notion of God. Randomness and Chance are complex subjects and I can only hope that the discerning reader links to some of the other connected pages to try and understand that the basic idea of the complexity of life increasing under it's own steam starts at the level of physics and basic chemistry - and once one has created a biological organism - which one's manage to reproduce depends on the criterion for survival and whether they are well-suited or "fit" to survive.Those that do not - perish - and those that do -pass on their DNAand who loses and wins is largely a matter of CHANCE and the NICHE that an organism is suited to. What no one expects anyone to believe is that life is basically at the whim of random factors that have no constraining rules - this I think is why creationists find such comments untenable - because they see order and complexity and wonder from whence it came - in lieu of any explanation - they default to God - rather than analyse the actual evidence because they are biased against it - if they were truly open-minded and accepted that the theory of God maybe wrong - then maybe they'd be able to see there is an easier explanation - one that is consistent with the data we see around us. In one RI lecture - Richard Dawkins explained how this CHANCE operated and seeked to show that it is not just a matter of the right parts falling in the right place by sheer happenstance - which seems to be what creationists think. I would emplore creationists to look at their inverted logic,their breach of Occam's Razor,their comprehension of notions of randomness and chance and to try to understand how complex the process of natural selection and genetic chemistry is - and just because Occam's Razor says "simplest explanation" - to understand that even this amount of complexity does not negate the idea that it is still preferable to "God did it" - because all God does is needlessly complicate the arguments by adding one further step in our process of trying to figure things out -and also makes it untenable to even ask questions - "God did it" forces an ignorance upon us - because we cannot ask things of him - we are only able to enquire of nature and test our speculations upon that.Also I suggest they read the answers given them by AOL,and consider what Isaac Asimov has to say. It is my contention that many beliefs either come about or are maintained because of innumeracy and the more one  understands about such notions of chance and probability the more one will see that perhaps one had false notions about what was possible and impossible,likely and unlikely.