This is a follow up to the previous post. This is what a group of real scientists have to say on the matter of positing randomness and chance as an explanation for the origin of life.
"It seems to us that the frozen-accident theory of life's origin is at best unsatisfying, and may be unworthy of the scientific way of approaching the world. To say that a natural process is random is, in effect, an act of surrender, something that should be done only as a last resort. If you read the frozen-accident literature carefully, you often get the feeling that what is really being said is: "My friends and I can't figure out why things happened this way, so it must have been random."
- Harold Morowitz, Robert Hazan, and James Trefil, Chronicle of Higher Education (September 2, 2005),