Editor, Daily Nexus,
The basis for Intelligent Design is that our universe must have been designed because the chance of our existence otherwise is nearly zero. This argument is a very poor one. Consider that some person buys a ticket for the Big Bang Lottery and wins. What evidence suggests that the lottery was designed such that he wins? Any claim that he was meant to win since he won proves absolutely nothing. More information is necessary than to logically claim that he was meant to win. Perhaps we can find out how many others entered the lottery. If no one else entered, then he wins no matter what. Or maybe everyone else was bullied into not entering, in which case the lottery was rigged.
Perhaps we can visit the lottery offices and look at how the winning ticket was selected. Maybe a fair and impartial computer selected the ticket. Or maybe lottery officials conspired so that he would win. Maybe you learn of some startling coincidences that led to the purchase of the winning ticket: such as he did not take the usual route to work or he had found the dollar used to buy the ticket outside the store. These coincidences suggest that the probability of him even entering the lottery in the first place has to be nearly zero. Therefore, since the chance of him entering and winning the lottery is nearly zero given that the lottery was not rigged, he must have been meant to win it and the Big Bang Lottery must have been designed for him to win it.
When it comes to our existence in the universe, we unfortunately cannot poll the Big Bang Lottery offices to determine how the winning ticket was selected nor how many others entered to win. We cannot infer any properties of the lottery from other lotteries because we only observe the outcome of our lottery and know of no others. Furthermore, assigning probabilities to the observed “coincidences” relies on assuming a probability model for each one and assuming that each occurs independently. Assuming the probability of a universe hospitable to life is extremely small is only conjecture. The flawed logic of ID renders it not even wrong.