Steve, you’re mixing two very different things and treating them as the same. Yes, science progresses through testing, correction, and refinement. No argument there. Planes fly, diseases get treated, and rockets land on the moon. That shows we can understand how systems behave once they exist. But that is not the same question as where those systems came from in the first place.

You’re pointing to human engineering as proof that unguided processes can explain origins. That actually cuts the other way. Every example you gave, rockets, medicine, and tools, comes from intelligence, planning, and information. We don’t look at a jet engine and say, "Given enough time, this assembled itself.” We say, "Someone designed it.” So the analogy supports design, not randomness. There are a few clear problems in your argument.

First, category error. You’re using success in applied science (engineering, medicine) to justify claims about ultimate origins. Those are not the same domain. Knowing how to manipulate chemistry does not explain how the first information-rich system arose.

Second, chronological snobbery. You dismiss something as false because it is old. Truth is not determined by the century it was written in. Mathematics from ancient Greece is still true. If a claim stands or falls, it does so on evidence, not age.

Third, false dichotomy. You frame it as “ancient ignorance vs. modern knowledge,” as if those are the only options. The real question is whether modern explanations actually account for the origin of complex, information-rich systems, or whether they assume what they need to prove.

Fourth, appeal to ridicule. Comparing belief in God to steam engines versus electric trains is not an argument. It’s a metaphor used to avoid the harder question: does the current model fully explain origins, or does it leave major gaps?

Fifth, misrepresentation. “God works in mysterious ways” is not the argument being made. The argument is about whether unguided material processes have demonstrated the ability to generate specified, functional information at the level required for life. That is a testable question.

Now your probability point. You asked about the “balance of probabilities.” Fair enough. Then we should be consistent. We know from repeated observation that… Information-rich systems come from intelligent agents… Complex, integrated systems require coordinated parts … Code, language, and symbolic systems always trace back to a mind

What we do not observe is undirected chemistry producing a fully functional, self-replicating, information-rich system. So if we are talking probability, we should compare what we actually see versus what is being assumed.

Finally, your Bronze Age argument misses something important. The people who wrote those texts were not ignorant of cause and effect. They knew the difference between something happening on its own and something being made. When they saw order, structure, and function, they inferred a cause. That is the same basic reasoning we use today in every other field.

The real question is simple… Has modern science demonstrated that unguided processes can account for the origin of life and biological information, or is that still an open problem being worked on?

If it’s still open, then dismissing alternative explanations as “bonkers” is not science. It’s just protecting a preferred conclusion. Thanks for stopping in. Please like, share and leave a comment.