
Dean Overman's 1997 A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, wherein he argues that "accident" and self-organization can not be behind the formation of the first "living matter", presumably the true principle behind it being "god" or something along these lines.

Dean Overman's 1997 A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, wherein he argues that "accident" and self-organization can not be behind the formation of the first "living matter", presumably the true principle behind it being "god" or something along these lines.

In terminology, accident, from Latin ad- ‘to’ + cadere ‘fall’, refers to an occurrence, incident, or event conceived as happening by chance; was unplanned, unforeseen, or unexpected; lacking intention or seeming design. [1]

Overview
In 1653, it was considered an old philosophical problem whether light was an "accident" or a "substance". [11]

In 1997, American lawyer and Christian apologeticist Dean Overman (Ѻ), in his A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization, attempts to argue the following position: [9]

“Is it mathematically possible that accidental processes caused the formation of the first form of living matter from non-living matter? Could accidental processes have caused the formation of a universe compatible with life? Are current self-organization scenarios for the formation of the first living matter plausible? Overman proceeds to demonstrate that it is mathematically impossible that accidental processes produced the first living matter.”

Overman grapples with Michael Polanyi among other topics.

Evolution | I’m not an accident!
Darwinian-conceptualized evolution, as opposed to creationism or intelligent design varieties, particularly as seen by objectors, of the religion-siding bent, often tend to characterize Darwin’s theory as “accidental, blind, random, chance based evolution”, hence object per the assertion that “I’m not an accident” motto; the following being on overtypical example:

“I’m not an accident, gentleman. You may be. I am not. I am not an accident. I am an event. And you are events. And what does this mean. An event is something that comes in its—into existence under its own name. And that’s what the Bible says. It’s as true as it has ever been. And you can say that Darwin is an event in the history of the human mind a catastrophe. The infamous pride of a natural scientist to explain his own existence, by accident. Why should I listen to a man who says he’ accident? He’s an accident, I’m another accident, so we never agree. But the fact is we want to agree. Charles Darwin is very important, because he spoke. And we have to make something on him. We have to refute him. So how is he an accident? You see, he’s a duty. I have to get rid of him, or I have to reconcile myself to him.”
— Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy (1953), “Cross of Reality” [7]

(add)


Professor Utonium (Ѻ), the chemist who created the Power Puff Girls (Ѻ), by “accident”, one day in his lab (Ѻ), as he tell them.

Professor Utonium (Ѻ), the chemist who created the Power Puff Girls (Ѻ), by “accident”, one day in his lab (Ѻ), as he tell them.

Professor Utonium
The following shows an overzealous chemistry professor—specifically Professor Utonium (Ѻ), the chemistry who created the Power Puff Girls (Ѻ), by “accident” one day in his lab (Ѻ), in the 1995-launched Cartoon Network series—angrily telling his kids they are all accidents, which is endemic of the underling nature inherent amid the ongoing evolution religion debates.

Meaning | Existence
The term "accident" has a rather deep connotative meaning to many, particularly when it comes to questions of purpose or meaning in respect to individual human existence and significance.

“Whether or not historical events are causality connected or are the result of chance, accident or mathematical probability are much more than abstract speculations. Their answer goes to the very root of the historian’s method of procedure. Of what would it avail us, if after all our labor, the reader were to agree that while strict causality has been proved in all past history, the future must be shrouded in darkness, or is controlled by chance? One may be convinced that historical laws are controlled by laws, but conclude that these laws are not causal, but indeterminate in nature.”
— Morris Zucker (1945), Field Theory of History [3]

(add)

Darwin’s dice
English naturalist Charles Darwin, in his personal correspondence, seems to have not believed in accidental adaptation:

“I cannot believe that a Rotifer or Tardigrade is adapted to its humble conditions of life by a happy accident.”
— Charles Darwin (1872), review of Henry Bastian’s The Beginnings of Life; sent to Thomas Wallace [10]

His evolution theory, however, seems to have become attached to the word as the arbiter of the mechanism. American political theory philosopher Curtis Johnson’s Darwin’s Dice (2014), e.g., goes into a detailed terminological analysis of Darwin and his evolution theory in respect to basing his theory on terms such as: “blind”, “random”, “chance” (or chance variation), and “accident”. [6]


Left: Youtube atheist Aron Nelson (2008), aka AronRa, on the fallacy of the popular notion that evolution is based on “accident”, with snippets of Richard Dawkins denying that evolutionists employ the notion of accident in their argument. Right: back cover section of Dawkins’ 1986 The Blind Watchmaker, wherein he cites the “accident” based evolution model, contrary to his interview statements, as the antonym to William Paley’s model of creation via god, along with 6+ usages of the term inside. (Ѻ)

Left: Youtube atheist Aron Nelson (2008), aka AronRa, on the fallacy of the popular notion that evolution is based on “accident”, with snippets of Richard Dawkins denying that evolutionists employ the notion of accident in their argument. Right: back cover section of Dawkins’ 1986 The Blind Watchmaker, wherein he cites the “accident” based evolution model, contrary to his interview statements, as the antonym to William Paley’s model of creation via god, along with 6+ usages of the term inside. (Ѻ)

Dawkins | Genes
(add)

Religion | Science
On of the key hinges in the religion vs. science debate is the assumed premise in the latter that humans are but the result of "accident", or semi-synonymously "random chance" or "blind random chance"; the following being two examples:

“Today's children are taught by our culture that we are a cosmic accident. Something slithered out of the primal slime and over billions of years evolved into a human being. We are cousins, ten times removed, to the ape at the zoo eating his own excrement.”
— Gary Bauer (1992/2013), Evangelical Christian centric politician; former domestic advisor to Ronald Reagan (Ѻ) (Ѻ) (Ѻ)

The following, similarly, is an anthropomorphized-slant on the so-called molecules-to-man evolution model, wherein the term “accident” is accentually repeated four times, as a means to suggest objection:

“Once upon a time, one molecule, scudding in a primordial ocean, suddenly and absolutely accidentally met another cute molecule. They decided to bind to each other and scud together, and found that they acquired a new property, which gave them a better chance to survive in that rough and unfriendly primordial ocean. During the next billions of years, these molecules met many other attractive molecules (of course, absolutely accidentally) and combined with many of them, creating a big conglomerate of molecules. This conglomerate again absolutely accidentally discovered that it can create similar little baby conglomerates by simple division and that is how a primordial organic complex or protein or nucleic acid was created. They then absolutely accidentally found each other in the primordial ocean, combined and created a small syndicate that acquired many new and very useful properties for survival and we now call it a ‘cell’. Accidental and random combinations of molecules can neither create a car nor a human being or even a simple one-celled organism with a certain ‘directing power’ that can transform originally inanimate matter into numerous forms of life.”
— Nickolas Dorfman (2008), Was Mona Lisa Created by Physicochemical Reactions Alone? [5]

(add discussion)


A depiction (Ѻ) of various types of so-called “accidents”: a book case falling, a person cutting off their hand, a nuclear leak (or explosion), an explosion, an electrocution, a fire, a broken leg, being hit by a car.

A depiction (Ѻ) of various types of so-called “accidents”: a book case falling, a person cutting off their hand, a nuclear leak (or explosion), an explosion, an electrocution, a fire, a broken leg, being hit by a car.

Empedocles | Aristotle
Greek standard model philosopher Empedocles, supposedly, according to American teleology theorist Terrence Deacon, was the first to outline an accident-based mechanical evolution or formation of animate form model: [4]

“Empedocles claimed that event the orderliness of living bodies might be able to arise spontaneously, simply by preserved accident. From these sparse beginnings all the more complex features of the world, like living bodies, could arise by combinations of more basic parts which themselves arose and combined by accident.”

Greek science-philosopher Aristotle, according to Deacon, supposedly, devoted considerable effort to refuting Empedocles' model of accident-based mechanical evolution or formation of animate form. [4] The term index of the Oxford edition of Aristotle's collected works, however, does show that he does devote some a number of pages (15-rows) to discussion of "accident" and "accident, fallacy of"; the following is one example:

“That a science of the accidental is not even possible will be evident if we try to see what the accidental really is. We say every thing is either is always and of necessity … or is for the most part, or is neither for the most part, nor always and of necessity, but merely as it chances … The accidental, then, is what occurs, but not always, nor for the most part. Now we have said what the accidental is, and it is obvious why there is no science of such a thing; for all science is of that which is always or for the most part, but the accidental is in neither of these two classes.”
— Aristotle (c.320BC), Metaphysics (11:8) [8]

Quotes
The following are other related quotes:

“I never did anything worth doing by accident, nor did any of my inventions come by accident; they came by work.”
— Plato (c.360BC) (Ѻ)

“There is no such thing as accident; it is fate misnamed.”
— Napoleon Bonaparte (c.1810)

“That man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collections of atoms.”
— Bertrand Russell (1903), “A Free Man’s Worship” [2]

“Accident is the negation of law, while chance, when numbers are large, possess and element of certainly, though not necessity.”
— Morris Zucker (1945), Field Theory of History [3]


A controversial 2012 billboard (Ѻ), erected outside of Rivers Church (Ѻ), Johannesburg, South Africa, showing a circa 1990 quote by English poet Francis Thompson (1859-1907), namely: “an atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident”, with a half-headed man, visually suggesting that typical atheists are “empty headed” (or brainless), because they, supposedly, believe their existence to be “accidental”, was pulled down, being that some found it offensive.

A controversial 2012 billboard (Ѻ), erected outside of Rivers Church (Ѻ), Johannesburg, South Africa, showing a circa 1990 quote by English poet Francis Thompson (1859-1907), namely: “an atheist is a man who believes himself to be an accident”, with a half-headed man, visually suggesting that typical atheists are “empty headed” (or brainless), because they, supposedly, believe their existence to be “accidental”, was pulled down, being that some found it offensive.

References
1. (a) Accident – Online Etymology Dictionary.
(b) Accident – Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 2000.
2. (a) Russell, Bertrand. (1903). “A Free Man’s Worship”, T.B. Mosher, 1923.
(b) Russell, Bertrand. (1961). “A Free Man’s Worship”, in: R.E. Egner and L.D. Dennon, eds., The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell 1903-1959. Simon and Schuster.
3. Zucker, Morris. (1945). The Philosophy of American History: The Historical Field Theory (causality, pg. 310; §: The Role of Accident and Chance in Modern Science, pgs. 525-26). Arnold-Howard Publishing Co.
4. Deacon, Terrence W. (2011). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter (pg. 112-13). W.W. Norton & Co.
5. Dorfman, Nikolas. (2008). Was Mona Lisa Created by Physicochemical Reactions Alone? Open Your Mind and Use Your Logic. iUniverse.
6. (a) Johnson, Curtis. (2014). Darwin’s Dice: the Idea of Chance in the Thought of Charles Darwin (blind, random, chance, pg. 18; accident, 41+ pgs). Oxford University Press.
(b) Curtis Johnson (faculty) – Lewis & Clark College.
7. (a) Rosenstock-Huessy, Eugen. (1953). “Cross of Reality” (pg. 21), Vol 5, Lecture 14, Dec 4.
(b) Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy – Wikipedia.
8. Brown, Richard H. (1977). A Poetic for Sociology: Toward a Logic of Discovery for the Human Sciences (pg. 255). University of Chicago Press, 1989.
9. Overman, Dean L. (1997). A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization. Rowman & Littlefield.
10. Darwin, Charles. (1872). “Letter to Alfred Wallace” (Ѻ), Aug 28.
11. Middleton, William E. (1964). The History of the Barometer (pg. 13) (Amz). Publisher.

External links
● Accident – Wikipedia.
● Accident – BranyQuote.com.