The probability of anything is 100% if you presume your determining conditions up-front.
The probability that of all possible physical laws and initial conditions, that life-enabling ones would be the first and only known "random" occurrence, is certainly not 100%.
The probabilistic constraint on a dependent sequence of events occurring is the step with the -lowest- probability.
I wouldn't be gauging this by the probability of a molecular arrangement occurring out of millions of "attempts", I'd be looking at the probability of the context existing to make the attempts possible. Which currently stands at a success rate of one out of one attempt--i.e., the Big Bang. Alternate hypothetical models allowing for more "attempts" have no more hard empirical basis than a theistic metaphysics.
... but that part is settled *regardless* of what your religion says.
Curious, given that it is "settled", you can't come up with a single objective basis for this or any other ethical conclusion you have, from your worldview.
Settled? You haven't even gotten started. Refer to the last 2500 years on complete non-consensus in secular philosophy for that. Or to a naturalism notion of evolution--what wins, works. Period. Nothing more to say.
No justification whatsoever other than ones stolen from theism itself = "settled". Hmm...
No, the basis of "nature", quantum behavior, is non-deterministic.
Deterministic behavior at a macro scale is inferred, though there are currently several companies quite comfortable with investing millions of dollars in the notion that quantum behavior can indeed result in large-scale "macro" effects.
Optimal double-down theistic exchange:
"Don't you know the bible accepts slavery?"
"Yes. And you should probably give that some more thought."
Two men, a rich one and a poor one, are walking down a road. They see a $20 bill on the ground held down by a rock. The first sees a small amount of money on the ground. The second sees a large amount of money on the ground. Which perception is empirically validated?
Unless I'm approaching questions of science from a perspective other than methodological naturalism (philosophical naturalism not thereby required), I don't see why it is of any concern of yours.
I'm really not sure what is more poignant at this point--your recognition that I am utterly uncompelled to "justify" my perceptions to you, or the irony that simply by waiting silently, evolution will eliminate you and your inquiry, and make it completely irrelevant. Happily, this is the case per -both- of our stances.
I despise these quasi "anthropic principle" arguments that explain precisely why they are wrong, and then triumphantly declare thereby they are right.
No, it remains the case that causality works forward. It remains the case that things existing means evidence for models of how they could get that way.
Note that reality, as well as empirical science, demonstrates that the results are not a lump of goo. You can correct your reasoning as needed from there.
And no, the "gap" exists only in your willfully irrational mind. That a detailed scientific understanding of a phenomenon exists, or does not exist, has zero relevance to whether or not there is -also- a broader causal sequence involved, god or otherwise. Nobody, ever, thought that a direct intervention of a god was needed for fire to cook their food, for water to roll downhill, or for a knife to cut something. No "gap" was filled, for anyone, at any point of scientific refinement of the particular physical processes involved in these, or any other scientific discovery. Fanciful revisionist history notwithstanding. Yes, we know more details. No, that has no relevance to one's view of how those details came to be.
"O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee!"
That's what a scientist and theist actually thinks about causal specifics. Try recognizing historical reality rather than parroting your Dawkins paperback.
As for "by whose standards", the answer is, yours. Before you misrepresent you own brain's evaluation, which you can't help confessing doing by your inability to remain indifferent about a question that, objectively, you should be indifferent about, if you actually considered the complexity unremarkable.
Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis