isite to sane thinking.

In reality, the expression "millions to one" is no more than an appeal
to man's awe in facing a stupendous mechanism, and his feeling of
impotence when dealing with so complex a subject as the evolution of a
world. It can only mean that to a certain state of knowledge it _seems_
millions to one against the present order resulting. But to a certain
state of knowledge it would seem millions to one against so fluid a
thing as water ever becoming solid. To others it is a commonplace thing
and a necessary consequence of the properties of water itself. To a
savage it would be millions to one against a cloud of "fire mist" ever
becoming a world with a highly diversified fauna and flora. To a
scientist there is nothing more in it than antecedent and consequent.
Such expressions as its being "millions to one" against certain things
happening is never really more than an appeal to ignorance; it means
only that our knowledge is not great enough to permit our tracing the
successive stages of the evolution before us. Once the scientific
conception of the universe is grasped, the marvel is not that the
present order exists, the marvel would be that any other "order" should
be, or that any radical alteration in it should occur.

And there really is no need to throw the whole universe at the head of
the sceptic. That is an attempt to overcome him with sheer weight.
Intrinsically there is nothing more marvellous in the evolution of a
habitable globe from the primitive nebula, than there is in the fact
that an unsupported stone always falls to the ground. It is only our
familiarity with the one experience and our lack of knowledge concerning
the other that gives us the condition of wonder in the one case and lack
of it in the other. In the light of modern knowledge "order" is, as W.
H. Mallock says, "a physical platitude, not a divine paradox."

Moreover, if the odds are a million to one against the existence of the
present arrangement existing, the odds would be equally great against
the existence of any other arrangement. And as the odds are equally
great against all--seeing that _some_ arrangement must exist--there can
be no logical value in using the argument against one arrangement in
particular. The same question, "Why this arrangement and none other?"
might arise in any case.

Finally, the absurdity of arguing that the "order" of nature compels a
belief in deity may be seen by realising the fact that ou