Actually the argument from improbability - that life cannot be the result of mere chance - is looking stronger all the time in my view. First you have the arguments presented by the anthropic principle
that the Universe itself requires the 'callibration' of a number of key ratios and properties for anything to exist. Then you have the fact that the possible combinations for the constituents of a living cell could be combined in a number of ways far larger than all of the atoms in the universe without giving rise to life. (I think the number of ways that the basic elements of DNA could be combined randomly adds up to something like 10 to the power of 100 which is an unthinkably massive number.) So I think the idea that life arises 'randomly' is baseless, and in fact I don't even think it is a matter of scientific judgement. There is no evidence for this idea - it can only be an inference.
This is not to argue for 'creationism' however. In fact I think our culture has created a false dichotomy between 'God' on the one hand and 'chance' on the other. I think an alternative view that is emerging is that the universe is inherently life-producing, that it has deep qualities or characteristics, which, given the right circumstances, are likely to produce living beings, through the evolutionary means that we are familiar with. (This view is put very eloquently by Simon Conway Morris
In this understanding it is not as if God is an active participant in the 'design of life' ("hey, looks like I better help design that cellular engine/eye mechanism - blind chance is having a problem with it" :bigsmile:). It is more like the emergence of intelligent life is governed by laws, in the same way that the movement of bodies is, albeit laws of much greater complexity and subtlety than Newton's laws of motion.
So this view is not in contradiction with the idea of a "divine intelligence". But neither is it in conflict with agnosticism, because any such intelligence will by nature be beyond science and indeed beyond knowledge in any ordinary sense. You might feel a conviction that there is indeed such an intelligence, but perhaps you can never know it for certain, nor demonstrate it objectively.
(On the other hand, the characteristic atheist view that the Universe must consist of 'blind processes' and life and human intelligence is the unintended and accidental consequence of these processes can't really tolerate this view either. But note that it is neither a 'religious' view, nor a 'scientific' view, in the sense that both terms are understood.)