Those who say such things either do not know what they are talking about (most common) or they are so caught up in their naturalist presuppositions that they cannot see the reality staring them in the face.  Randomness does not create complex information.  We know this, both because it is not observed, and because thermodynamic laws regarding the creation of information tell us the same thing.  There are two possible explanations of fine tuning:   Absolutely mind-boggling and clearly beyond the realm of conceivably possible luck, or the work of an intelligent Creator.   This fine tuning is not random.

The only way to allow “randomness” to explain fine-tuning is to allow for a literally infinite number of universes, of which ours is the infinitely lucky one.  This multiverse speculation is not a scientific one.  It is an ad hoc proposal, without a shred of evidence, or even a workable, testable theory to support it.  Nonsense!

And the same with DNA.  The problem of DNA is somewhat different from that of fine tuning, as the “random” creation of working DNA requires, not the creation of something from nothing, but that random chemical interactions of pre-existing small molecules produce information.  Again, there is no evidence that this has ever happened, and the laws of thermodynamics tell us that it will not happen.  Only information-containing systems can create new information (which is what happens when evolution occurs).  This is not speculation, it is a basic natural law–well understood by scientists who are not blinded by their presuppositional/philosophical need to come up with a theory to explain the creation of life-producing DNA by random chance.  How do I know that DNA was produced by random processes?  Because it is the only possible explanation.  Therefore, I do not need to produce a believable mechanism.  That is circular or presuppositional thinking.

John Oakes