Technically that would just make it very unlikely, that doesn’t mean it could not have happened.
The lower the probability, the lower the frequency. If the probability isn’t strictly zero, then it’s possible it could have happened. At no point does the probability of some event, or result of some process, cross over from just more unlikely to “so unlikely it requires divine intervention/design/fine-tuning”.
Positing fine-tuning doesn’t solve the probability problem, as you now have to have a fine-tuned fine-tuner such that it would want to create life as we know it. What’s the probability of that?
The Discovery Institute loves to attack “Darwinism” even though Darwinism hasn’t been the scientific consensus for close to a hundred years. Darwin is a recognizable name of course so the DI spends lots of time attacking something the public has heard of. ID’s target audience isn’t professional scientists. It’s scientifically illiterate laymen who want science to prop up their religious beliefs, something the DI exploits with 100% of their religious themed anti-science propaganda.
this was a great idea for a talk. its about how someone was persuaded by meyers book that evolutionism has serious problems andf this was from a fan of evolution.
The math thing was explained. its how it requires fantastic probabilities to see chance created complicated things. Evolutionism claiming mutations turned dust into biology is just dumb. Math should prove this.