Answer To A Callowly Made Complaint

There is all the difference in the world in making claims of probability and random chance when those are made in an imaginary, theoretical infinity of time and a practical and still imaginary infinity of purported numbers and taking seriously the meaning of theorized improbabilities and random chances working their way out in the very limited time and very limited numbers of reality.  

The phenomena of the real universe and, far more so, life on the one and only planet we know it arose and evolved on forces the numbers of theorized probability and random chance into a very limited time frame and number of entities in which those have a chance to be expressed in reality.  I would need to have an explanation of how that difference isn't important before I could take the ideological use of them by scientistic, atheist, materialists any more seriously than I would any other ideological use of them.  

I'm not convinced that when you take those most real of humanly experienced realities into account that they could do what the atheist cosmologists and Darwinian biologists want them to do for their ideological campaign.  I think that the presence of that ideological campaign, firmly set in not only the culture but the literature of science is as much of a scandal if someone were to insert religious belief into them.  Only no one bats an eyelash when it's atheist ideology so inserted.   

As things stand, everything said about "other universes" is ideologically motivated make-believe, not a product of knowledge or evidence as there is none to inform it.  Everything said about "other life" on planets in the one universe which has the decided but not presently useful advantage of us knowing those planets exist is make believe of almost the same level of ignorance and lack of evidence.  Until "other life" is known and available for us to look at in depth - don't wait up nights or hold your breath - it's best seen as science fiction, also inserted directly into science where it has no real business being.  

Update:  Yeah, I'm saying that when an atheist, materialist says "probability" or "random chance" my bull shit detector is tripped because unless they can make a good case that those are more than just slogans in the context they spout them in,  it's bull shit designed to cover up their inability to make a good argument.  I'm extremely skeptical of it in those two cases I cited, multi-universe cosmological fiction and the claim that evolution happens through a combination of random chance and probability.   When those seem to work at such incredible improbabilities at even a theoretical infinity of time and discrete entities but only have been able to work within the very much shorter time that 14 billion years are and the number of discrete objects in the universe are, they deserve to be considered with proportionate skepticism as an answer to why things are as we can observe they are.