If you are walking along a deserted beach early one morning and encounterd a few dozen large stones on the sand, arranged to spell the word "Hello", would you assume that the tide washed the stones up and randomly produced "Hello", or would you assume a person arranged them?

I would assume a person did it earlier, before I arrived. I would think it was highly improbable that the ocean would arrange the stones in such a way. Common sense would tell me a person did it. That the word "hello" was by design rather than by chance.

So, what's my point?

My point is that there are times in life when it is safe to make an assumption about something, as the alternatives are just too improbable.

I've spent quite a long time looking at the creation of the universe, at one end of the scale, and down to the origin of life on earth...

... at the other end of the scale; the cell.

Whilst I'm still learning (along with the rest of humanity) about both ends of the scale and everything in-between, I already know one thing for sure; the creation of the universe at the 'big bang' and the creation of functioning...

... cells, are stones on a deserted beach that spell the word "hello". It is mathematically improbable that the initial conditions that produced the universe occurred by chance. It is also mathematically improbable that functioning cells were produced by chance, through a...

... Darwinian process of natural selection.

The evidence points towards design, rather than chance. This for some is a controversial view, particularly inside the scientific academy, but then of course, pointing out simple biological facts about sex, is now also controversial.

Suggesting that design and a "designer" are responsible, rather than chance, is controversial because it points towards an "intelligent designer", or a "creator", which of course triggers many people, as that introduces the 'G' word; "God".

Well, here's the thing; I don't...

... worry about triggering people, and quite frankly I don't care what people want to call the "designer". What I do care about, is going where the evidence is pointing, rather than ignoring the obvious, or engaging in mental or linguistic gymnastics, rather than accepting the..

... fact that whatever produced the universe and life on this planet, it wasn't randomness or chance. It is however rather strange that anyone who has bothered looking, can't see the obvious.

I'm really not sure why people (many of whom should know better)are afraid to...

... acknowledge that the dominant scientific narrative has holes in it and is in need of an upgrade and reboot. Would they prefer to devalue humanity by stating we are just an accident, a fluke, rather than being the product, the design of something quite extraordinary?

If you think that the universe isn't that impressive, or is just a product of randomness, then ponder on how it was produced. The initial conditions at the 'big bang' had to be precise, to produce the universe. Then ponder on where the stuff that went 'bang' came from. How...

... can something be produced out of nothing?

If you are tempted to fall back on the 'multiverse theory', don't bother. Whilst it may sound clever to suggest our 'finely tuned universe' is one of an infinite number of universes and that our one just happens to be have these...

... finely tuned conditions, you are creating a problem for yourself. You then have to explain where the multiverse came from and you are (ironically) playing the role of God in order to create this a multiverse, for which there is actually no evidence. So, hopefully I saved...

... you some time.