Question

Rabbi, in the book God Plays Dice, in the section that explains the improbability of the evolutionary chain of events, the Rabbi says that even if we assume that life came into being (whose improbability was explained earlier), the chance that a mutational change in a living thing will produce another living thing rather than reach a dead end is not likely, because there are only very few combinations within the ocean of mutations that produce a living creature. And the chance that it will produce an improved creature is even lower. But before that, the Rabbi wrote that there are laws that ensure that the small changes are preserved within the space that “stays alive,” and also that there is an opinion that mutations are generated in adaptation to environmental changes and not randomly—apparently this is explained by the laws of nature. In the footnote and later on, the Rabbi says that the fact that this is driven by the laws of nature does not change the wonder itself. My question is: why does the fact that it is explained by laws not change anything?
Doesn’t it not matter because then we return to the physico-theological proof from the laws of nature (which are designed in a wondrous way)? Should we now ask what the probability is that the laws of nature would be such rather than otherwise (something the Rabbi explained is logically problematic to ask)?
And a second point—regarding the possibility that the laws of nature existed from time immemorial, the Rabbi said that for present purposes they simply replace God as something that always existed and does not depend on us. But it seems to me that this is not the same thing, since even the philosophical God is conceived as a conscious entity, which consciously created something / planned it / intentionally affected the improbability. By contrast, the laws of nature, even if they existed from time immemorial, are generally not conceived as a conscious entity, etc. So ostensibly there is an advantage to the assumption that the laws of nature are what existed from time immemorial (according to Occam’s razor?)