This was from a book review of The Biotic Message by Walter ReMine (thanks for telling me about this book, Geoff!):
ReMine’s treatment of the origin of life is good. I particularly liked the way he dealt with some of the bluffs of evolutionists who try to dilute the improbability argument with irrelevant analogies. For example, the exact arrangement of the cards in a deck just after it is shuffled is highly improbable, but nevertheless an improbable arrangement happens every time.
This confuses the point entirely. The question is not ‘what is the probability that life arose?’ but ‘what is the probability that life could arise naturalistically, without the involvement of an intelligent creator?’.
Any arrangement of cards is as ‘good’ as any other and there will be an arrangement of cards. However, with the DNA code, a particular arrangement is required.
If we got an arrangement of cards with an orderly pattern (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, etc.) we would conclude that someone had ‘stacked the deck’; that is, an intelligence was responsible because such an arrangement is so unlikely from random shuffling (the probability of such an arrangement from random shuffling is less than 1 in 1067). Many a card cheat has paid the price of this powerful evidence of intelligent input!
Evolutionists want us to believe that something far less likely than the orderly arrangement of cards happened without intelligent input—and they use irrelevant analogies to try to avoid the argument.
Batten, D. (1997). “The Biotic Message: Evolution versus Message Theory by Walter James ReMine” [book review] in Journal of Creation, December 1997, p. 293.