> I'm also a Christian, but I want to play devil's advocate for a bit here and respond to one of the things you said:
>
> > And, does it make more sense that we occured on accident or on purpose? For me, the answer is obvious. For you, it is different.
>
> It's not quite as obvious as it sounds to some, especially when you take into account the myriad number of planets and conditions throughout the universe. Even more so if you believe in multiple universes.
>
> The argument goes like this: we're advanced enough to ask ourselves the question above, whether by accident or design. We can do that because, in the view of evolution, the conditions for evolution have been just right. If they were any other conditions, we'd have turned out vastly different and may not even have lived this far.
>
> Therefore, even if we were created by accident, we wouldn't know because we would probably not live to be able to think that under any other conditions. Thus, the likelihood of whether we were created by accident is of no consequence.
>
> That's how I understand the argument, anyway. I should repeat again, though, that I'm a Christian. I do believe that God created us, along with the rest of the Bible. I believe this because I've seen and known too much about how the world works and how different things happen to believe otherwise.

I think you're referring to the anthropic principle, which has different variations. Proponents of "intelligent design" have argued: given the extreme unlikelihood of the finely tuned constants of the universe being conducive to intelligent life, when selected at random from the ranges which they could have taken (think of universe generation as a repeatable trial), it is extremely unlikely that the universe "randomly" resulted in intelligent life without the intervention of an intelligent designer (which would imply a supernatural God).

Reading up on it a month or two ago, I found an interesting and compelling argument that the weak version of the anthropic principle (as defined in the Wikipedia article as "The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirements that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so") actually undermines the intelligent design conjecture. It can be difficult to follow, though, if you haven't had much experience in mathematical probability proofs. Follow the "it has been argued" link from the Wikipedia article to get to the page I'm referring to.