Perhaps a better example would be one of the aircraft that, as an engineer, you help design. Where is the evidence that Random Chance had resulted in such an aircraft? With eons and infinite variables, why has an aircraft not suddenly sprung into being? Why must it have been the object of an intelligent design? Why not just throw the raw materials into a hopper and let Random Chance produce it? (If Random Chance could result in such an aircraft, then there would be no need for engineers, would there? ;^D )
I'm not trying to be flippant. I just don't grasp your basis for positing Random Chance as having created the Universe. I do not accept that the Universe was an accident because there is no cause and effect to that hypothesis. Reason dictates that before the laws of the universe came into being, Random Chance could not be a force (or exist as a possibility), because it is a part and parcel of a structured universe. Every 'event' can be traced to a cause and effect (no matter how random), if investigated thoroughly. Random Chance is simply not possible without cause and effect. If that were not so, then science could not develop theories nor explain anything.
> Perhaps a better example would be...
... one that is *actually* *relevant.* Organic systems, unlike watches and aircraft, are based on components that *self* *assemble.* Amino acids and proteins can be reasonably expected to form of their own accord in the right environments, while rivets and springs will not.
Do not make the standard Creationist mistake of believing, wrongly, that chemical simplicity means greater likelihood of formation. It may be emotionally satisfying to believe that, but it is factually wrong.