I just googled "huxley calculation probability evolution" and the first result is an anti-evolution blog complaining that "Evolution proponents like to say that creationists depend upon fallacies to discuss the statistical probabilities of evolution ever occurring....'It doesn't make any sense to calculate the odds of some particular replicator forming. We need to know the odds of any interesting replicator forming.'"
The seventh hit is a Google Books sample from Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas saying that
Huxley's calculation acutally gives the conditional probability that, if a given single-celled animal contains 1,000,000 mutations, it will itself turn into a horse. Neither Huxley nor any other evolutinist has ever claimed that a horse sprang fully developed from one single-celled animal. Thus...Huxley's huge number is as irrelevant as it is impressive.So as you see, it's not hard to find criticism of Huxley's faulty logic. I bet the same is true for Hoyle as well.
I actually agree with you and I stated Huxley was criticized in an earlier post but for the application of probability to endpoints. The author of this criticsm appears to playing a word game. What is the difference between “some particular replicator” and “any interesting replicator”? It sounds like a preference, not a criticism of the method. It may be a particular interest of the critic but it certainly doesn’t refute the validity of the point choices as being an incorrect approach
In any case, endpoints are used everywhere in the physical sciences for probability calculations. “How did we get here” is a common question.