<<1. The probabilities are correct but abiogenesis happened twice anyway.
Highly improbable events do happen>>
I agree, but the more highly improbably, the less one ought to hitch one's
wagon to it as a plausible explanation, don't you think?
<<2. The probabilities are incorrect because of phenonema unaccounted for in
the model.>>
Sure, leaving naturalists with an "atheism of the gaps" argument, which I've
never found compelling.
<<3. The probabilities are correct, but divine intervention has occurred.>>
I don't see anything wrong with this, and it supports the Intelligent Design
model, which as I've said before is NOT harmed by the Mars data (IF it is
life, and not caked mud).
<<BTW there are now at least 4 books in the Hitchhiker Trilogy.>>
Now five. I love what it says on the cover of "Mostly Harmless": "The fifth in
the increasingly inaccurately named Hitchhiker's trilogy."