One of the things that bugs me is when some creationists try to talk about biological evolution and the Big Bang theory in the same breath. They're two different and completely unrelated theories.

Evolution doesn't try to answer the question "where did the universe come from?" It only answers the biological question of how life on this planet became so intricate and complex. Heck, even the Big Bang theory doesn't answer the "where did the universe come from" question, it only theorizes about the first moment of the universe's existence.

Creationists like to argue that the first spark of life on this planet, the first time molecules assembled into self-replicating strands, had astronomical odds against it. Scientists counter with: "Yeah, but we had oceans of molecules working on the problem for eons". I counter with: "You're both forgetting that we had an entire universe full of planets, many of them with oceans of molecules working on the problem."

We're sitting on a winning lottery ticket, and we've got the evidence to show it. Those who say the game was rigged are missing out on the true wonder and appreciation for the situation.

No matter how much time or energy was spent "working" (in the metaphorical sense ) on it, it's still difficult to see how molecules could come together without outside intervention to make un-life into life.

If we weren't able to sit here contemplating our own existence, then we wouldn't be contemplating our own existence.

The WAP is significant in that it makes the improbability of any one universe (i.e. our own) irrelevant. We should expect that our universe has features compatible with our existence, since, after all, we exist.

Somewhere, somehow, something exists or existed that was never created. Some say our universe itself never had a beginning, other theories include timeless other dimensions that created this one. Christians believe it is God.

No, it is saying if he hadn't eaten the apple he'd have been obeying God.

if that was all that Christians believed about God, it would merely be an unusual definition of the word

(paraphrased from the "gifts of fruit" sequence in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe, but no less valid IMO for being penned by a novelist, not a theologian)

The "Babel fish" piece also contains a message to theologians and non-theologians alike in how we can tie ourselves in knots with simple logic (not to mention being about my favorite sequence from any piece of fiction).

I don't remember that part (we are talking about the book, correct?)