I see that the hoary old "probability" argument against evolution/life on earth has been raised yet again. Let me just re-post
something I originally said over five years ago (with minor editing for clarity)-
So, what about it, taz? If someone laid out a deck of cards as described above, would you really argue that the outcome was an impossible one since the probability of it was so infinitesimally small? Or would you get the point that assessing probabilities
before an outcome is a proper use of the concept, but completely irrelevant afterwards? As abaddon (I think) said, the probability of any outcome which has already happened is 100%.
See, here's the thing, to me. If you wanted to argue that there was a god (or an "Infinite" or whatever) that set the whole thing in motion without any regard for how it would turn out, I wouldn't argue against it, because that would be a statement of faith that, in fact, would not conflict with the theory of evolution (or current cosmology)- it's an add-on that isn't
necessary to the theory, but it doesn't negate it. But if you want to argue that god not only threw the cards up in the air, resulting in the lay we have, but guided the order and position of each card, then you need more evidence than a "probability" argument that only works as a circle- you end up assessing an outcome as, by definition, an aim only because your argument doesn't work if you don't.
