[LiteKeeper]

Creationists have been talking about this for years - it is called the Anthropic Principle. And the concept was developed initially by non-creationists.

[Gondring]

Of course, there are many meanings of the term “anthropic principle”...but the point is, “perfect conditions for humans” is absolutely no evidence toward creationism.

[AnalogReigns]

it is called the Anthropic Principle. And the concept was developed initially by non-creationists.

Yep. It's why I find it particularly amusing whenever they show some over-educated starry-eyed cosmologist on TV insisting that he's certain that life is common in the universe....

Scientists start with just as many assumptions if not more than your average Joe.

[agere_contra]

To expand on your point: the apparent fortuity in planetary formation is a subset of the 'weak' Anthropic principle - which (broadly speaking) concerns the chances of human life and civilization ever appearing on Earth.

In contrast: the 'strong' Anthropic principle is about the chances of the Universe having the right parameters to support life in any shape or form. The idea here is that the elements of the periodic table, the existence of atoms, the existence of baryonic matter itself, and many other life-critical platforms - are all either the result of incredible fluke or a sign of intent by a Divine Creator.

[js1138]

Creationists have been talking about this for years - it is called the Anthropic Principle. And the concept was developed initially by non-creationists.

Assuming your creationists have no problem with billions of years.

I'm not a creationist, but I accept the probable rarity of earthlike planets. I don't draw any conclusions from this. Once something has happened, the probability is one.