ShadowCatboy posted:

Well it's important to note that when we commonly encounter organized events of very low probability, we generally infer that these must have been the result of design. For example, it would be very difficult to explain the structure of Stonehenge with appeals to normal geological or weathering forces. Creationist arguments simply try to apply this logic to life itself. I must emphasize "try," of course.

So yes, a lot of Creationist arguments these days hinge on probabilistic claims. You see this mostly in the Intelligent Design camp, since they specialize in more technical and less obviously stupid arguments. The second argument you propose here is similar to the Fine Tuning Argument, which goes like this:

1. Consider the laws and constants of the universe and all the possible alternate values they could have taken.
2. The vast, vast majority of other alternatives would make life in our universe impossible. (For example, if the strong nuclear force were just a hair stronger, hydrogen would fuse into other weird conformations instead of helium. Stellar dynamics would be drastically altered, and it would be impossible for human life to evolve).
3. Therefore, our universe must've been designed by some being (God).
4. Therefore, God exists.

Now, how might you try to debunk this?