The origin of the code for all living things, DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a controversial mystery among inquiring minds who want to know the origin of all living things. Some say an intelligence created it because it is far too complex to have been created by accident, while others insist more naturalistic processes were the cause. Others will simply say they don't know its origin and leave the discussion at that.The controversary and positions are understandable, since DNA as those who espouse origin by intelligence like to point out, is almost unexaggeratedly unfathomably complex. This is certainly a truth that can't be denied, even by those who are not convinced its origin is by intelligent design, and anyone who would deny this would be laughed out of the discussion by parties on both sides of the debate. Regarding this discussion I believe it needs to be established that there really are only two options; either an intelligence formed DNA as it currently is or it happened by purely naturalistic (I would dare say chemical) processes. I do not believe this is a false dichotomy because based on the context this seems to be the only two logical options that could be possible. If I am wrong and someone convinces me I will glady correct myself.
The position taken by those who would claim an intelligence created DNA or formed it as it is is certainly not an unwarranted or unreasonable conclusion for someone to jump to. As already stated DNA is unfathomably complex, the result of a very very very long complex chain of chemical reactions, all orderered and structured in such a way that they result in the creation of a living breathing organism, and in the case of humans a living breathing organism that is cognizantly aware of its enivornment and existence and has feelings, emotions, aspirations, etc. From the complexity of the human brain down to the trillions of complex cells that make life possible many are awed into the belief, understandably, that DNA which is far far more complex than anything intelligent humans have created must have been created by an intelligence itself. How could DNA, which is so intricately and complexly structured and ordered for life to exist, have been created by chance? How could it work in the beginning if everything is ordered in such a way that if anything would change it would no longer work? These are the questions the intelligent design propopnents reasonably ask.
On the other side are those who propose the hypothesis of DNA occuring through naturalistic (again dare I say chemical) processes. They see no need to assume a designer intelligently designed it, even if they don't know precisely how it originated, because as DNA stands and works now it is a completely self-sustaining biochemical process that requires no intelligent intervention from an outside source. The driver of life and the thing that propels change in the genetic code of DNA, evolution, is also completely self-sustaining and does not require the outside intervention of an intelligent source to run it. True, an intelligence could have started it and then let it run on its own afterward, but to this side the assumption seems unwarranted and unnecessary because everything we know about DNA and evolution which shapes it is self-sustaining biochecmical processes that do not require and intelligence to run. It also does not appear that an intelligence created a DNA code specifically for each type of organism since every organism's genetic code will eventually change through time and eventually become a different code for a different species.
There are good points to be had by both sides, to be sure, but personally while I understand the reasoning of the intelligent design camp and I don't fault them for the conclusion they come to I believe DNA formed through naturalistic chemical processes. Notice I said I BELIEVE, not I KNOW, because there is a difference between believing something and knowing something to be an unequivocal fact. I believe something when I see enough proponderance of evidence to warrant that conclusion, but I KNOW something when it is an unequivocal fact, such as 2 + 2 equals 4 or that DNA exists for example.
Before I get to my reasons for believing DNA occurred through naturalistic chemical processes I want to explain Occam's Razor, a principle in general logic. Occam's Razor simply states that the most simple explanation for a phenomenon is the most likely to be true, simple not meaning the easiest to understand but the explanation requiring the fewest amount of assumptions, or in the way I like to put it the explanation that is most consistent with everything we already know and requires the least amount of assuming anything that we don't know.
Let's apply Occam's razor first to the intelligent design camp. True, we know intelligence exists, and that intelligence creates incredibly complex structures akin to how DNA is so unfathomably complex, and on the surface this sounds like it should be compatible with Occam's razor.
If we know intelligence exists, and that it creates incredibly complex things, it's valid logically to assume an intelligence created the incredibly complex DNA right? Not necessarily. The issue with Occam's razor and the argument for intelligent design for DNA is that the intelligence being espoused for the creation of the complex structures akin to DNA are the results of HUMAN intelligence, who are themselves the result of DNA. The only intelligence that is unequivocally known to exist is the result of DNA itself. Sure, some might believe in a god or gods who are intelligent, but if this was an unequivocal fact like DNA itself there would be no dispute about its existence and it would be a reasonable assumption to make because we would know for a fact that it exists. We do not know for a fact that a human-like intelligence outside of DNA exists. This argument is positing intelligence which is a result of DNA as the origin of DNA itself.
This argument is also assuming some sort of intelligent being and/or deity existed who was intelligent enough to create something as complex as DNA, a being whom we know nothing about nor how that being itself even came into existence, or how that being took all of the molecules and somehow formed them into DNA as if it were in a modern day laboratory setting and playing with molecules and their reactions with one another like a high school chemistry classroom.
This argument also uses the false equivocation fallacy of comparing human-made static structures with self-replicating biological organisms that have a built-in system that can gradually change them over time through purely naturalitstic processes, or how those structures are made from a top-down design rather than a bottom-up design which is how evolution could very well have occurred because it is self-replicating and can change over time through biochemical processes.
For these reasons, even with how incredibly complex DNA is, I believe the intelligent design hypothesis fails Occam's Razor.
Regarding the naturalistic hypothesis, there are many more consistencies with things we know and fewer assumptions regarding things we don't know.
First of all, due to the very virtue of DNA and even life existing we know it's possible for molecules to replicate themselves. We don't know if the first self-replicating molecules would have started with a more primitive form of DNA, or RNA, or some other system but the fact that we know that molecules do this means it is not far-fetched to imagine that the first organisms were self-replicating molecules and this is consistent with what we know at the current time.
Furthermore, there are two facts that are consistent with what we know that can explain how molecules transitioned from simpler to more complex and led to DNA as we know it today - Natural selection and that the environment of the earth was very different billions of years ago. We know how natural selection works due to its role in evolutionary change, and that it can take things from simpler to more complex, and that natural selection in combination with the changing atmospheres and conditions of the early earth could have easily caused these self-replicating molecules to change and become more complex over time as the population of molecules adapted to the new conditions. This could also explain how eventually the self-replicating molecules developed a system complex enough to not work if any of it was change, since it gradually changed over time and gradually became more complex.
This theory invokes more things that are already known, such as natural selection, self-replicating molecules, and that the atmosphere and conditions of the early earth were changing, versus assuming an unknown intelligence outside of DNA that may or may not exist created it through unknown means or with unknown mechanisms.
