[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
What vhawk and Alex said.

The plain and simple fact is that we don't know how life originated, and we don't know how likely it was. Some people have manipulated what limited data we have in an attempt to describe some "likelihood" of life occurring spontaneously, but it's all based on hot air. Not only have there been no mathematically and scientifically consistent conjectures, but it's not even possible to formulate such a conjecture yet.

What I'll say is that the main argument of the scientists is careful analysis and reasoned speculation, while the main argument of the creationists is that it doesn't seem intuitive. In these kinds of debates, the scientists almost always win - the workings of our universe are simply counterintuitive sometimes, especially when based on incomplete information.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is really amazing to me that people still consider 'counterintuitive' to be a valid criticism of any sort of explanation. Haven't the last hundred years or so of evolutionary biology given us a pretty decent understanding of exactly how counterintuitive reality can be, and exactly WHY so many things are counterintuitive? Is this just a harkening back to the good old days of mathematical discovery, where the best proofs were always intuitive and elegant and beautiful?

And it also sort of exposes peoples misunderstanding of what 'intuitive' really means. There are probably hundreds of papers that instantly make intuitive sense to Boro or Rduke about their respective subjects that seem counterintuitive to me. Once fully explained, this disappears. Counterintuitive is really just another way of saying "I am currently pretty ignorant about this." It probably works as a general, practical rule for getting through your day, but it has a dodgy track record in sussing out truth.