Over and over again, we affirm our belief in God by contrasting to what seems to be the wildly implausible idea that man, life, and the universe, in all their design and complexity, could have been produced by mere chance. However, science has demonstrated that even complex structures can evolve through processes involving chance (i.e. natural selection) when given millions of years to operate. This renders the chance hypothesis, with the qualifier ‘over extended periods of time,’ not so implausible after all. Is the response to this hypothesis simply that it still does not answer the basic questions regarding the origin of the materials that eventually formed the universe and life and regarding the fundamental laws governing the development of such materials?
The analogy that you have drawn between the creation of the whole universe and the potential entailed in it of sustaining life with that of ‘natural selection’ does not seem to be coherent when you consider that the idea of ‘natural selection’ is based on experiments performed in pre-existing environment which entails the potential of producing and sustaining life. This is not the case with the creation of the whole universe or the potential of sustenance of life in it.
I hope the foregoing explanation would suffice as answer to your question. However, if it does not, then I would request you to give a more detailed example of a case of ‘natural selection’, which would help me clarify my explanation more clearly.
November 16, 2002