Another fallacy that we're using a made-up name for on these threads: Retrospective Astonishment. PH's idea, I think.
a.k.a. "arguing from incredulity." Both concepts bring emotional baggage that should be held in check.
Does the fact that mathematical statistics, probabilities, and calculations may result in astronomical figures negate their usefulness as a tool for giving evidence of intelligence or design?
If you saw a perfect cube made of solid rock, would you think it to be scientifically unacceptable and inappropriate, i.e. irrelevent, to apply the disciplines of mathematics and probabilities in ascertaining whether the cube gives evidence of an intelligent agent or is a product of wholly unguided, "natural processes?"
Frankly, if I saw a perfect cube made of solid rock, I would believe God made the rock, and man shaped it. That is what I would predict as far as its history is concerned. Would my prediction be preposterous or unworthy of consideration because I failed to employ mathematics in the process? No. Would I be arguing from "Restrospective Astonishment?" Yes.
Quantum Physics is enough evidence for me to believe the elemental nature of that rock is held together by intelligent laws that act without my understanding or intimate knowledge. Personal experience and observation yields enough evidence to conclude the rock was most likely shaped by means of human, i.e. intelligent, means.
To be open minded I must allow for the possibility I am wrong on all counts, but I don't need judges and courts of law to tell me what I can be taught, or what I should believe. Certain dogmatic evolutionists aren't so sure. They employ school boards, judges, and courts as sacred guardians of their infallible truths.
The best example of this is to shuffle a deck of cards, and then deal them out in their shuffled sequence. The odds against that particular sequence is 57! which is 4.05269195 × 1076. That number is several orders of magnitude greater than the number of stars in the sky. In other words, the odds against that particular shuffle are truly astronomical. Yet there it is, lying on the table before you. A miracle? No. Impossible? No. It's "astonishing" only in retrospect.
What would be impossible, however, is to predict that sequence ahead of time. Virtually impossible.
The life on earth today can be regarded as one shuffle of the deck. Highly improbable. But here we are. If the universe were to go into rapid rewind and then go forward again, we'd probably end up with a different bunch of species on earth, just as a new shuffle of the deck would result in a different sequence of cards. The odds against any one sequence are immense. But you would end up with a sequence. Guaranteed.