Astronomy has had a busy decade or two, with one of the more interesting developments being discovering planets around other stars, exoplanets as the lingo goes. The bigger and closer a planet is to its star, the easier it is to see, so the early sample set of exoplanets has seen a lot of "hot Jupiter" gasballs up close to their stars, with smaller, Earth-like planets far enough away to not have water boil but not so far to have H2O freeze up being few and far between so far.
However, even with that caveat that more Earth-like planets in stellar Goldilocks zones should be forthcoming as telescopes develop over time, there seems to be a shortage of Earth 2.0 candidates-
The scientists also have similar concerns about the galactic and cosmological inputs of their model but nonetheless they suspect that their final numbers are accurate to within an order of magnitude. With the estimated errors taken into account, the researchers conclude that Earth stands as a mild violation of the Copernican principle. Our pale blue dot might just be special after all. “It's not too much of a fluke that we could arise in a galaxy like the Milky Way, but nevertheless, it's just enough to make you think twice about it,” says Jay Olson from Boise State University, who was not involved in the study. Both he and [Uppsala U's Erik] Zackrisson think the Copernican principle could be saved by some unknown caveat to the findings. “Whenever you find something that sticks out…” Zackrisson says, “…that means that either we are the result of a very improbable lottery draw or we don’t understand how the lottery works.”
One of the features of modern science is that outside forces like deities are ruled out, so that cosmology and biology are left to evolve via purely natural random forces internal to the physical universe. Biological evolution by random DNA and RNA tweaks is something of a long shot and random cosmological evolution generating a livable Earth is proving to be somewhat problematic as well.
Is there a lottery at all? To mash-up Einstein, might God be playing with loaded dice in creating the Universe?
Zackrisson's musing of "how the lottery works" likely was intended to note the relative ignorance we have of comparative exoplanetology; we're just figuring out what's out there and are merely taking educated guesses of questionable value when speculating what typical and various atypical solar systems should look like. With a rather small sample set compared with the size of the Universe, we're just scratching the surface of exoplanetology, so any attempts at tweaking the parameters of the Drake Equation are using ballpark figures at best.
To the theist, Zackrisson's lottery begs the question of whether something or Someone is supervising the ping-pong balls of the galactic lottery.
Historically, folks have chalked up unknown processes to the supernatural, a "God of the gaps." As science improves, those gaps get smaller, as a lot of miracles and demonic influences of yore get explained by physical processes. However, there are still quite a few gaps left, like how did life start, how did the Big Bang start and how did the various counter-intuitive cosmological events like inflation happen, how did Earth get in a place and time for life to develop and is it a one-off, and how did macroevolution, going from one species to another with dozens of genetic changes that helped, occur.
Science is still working on those. Some might be explained by natural processes, but others might not. At some point, seeing the universe as an open system rather than a closed one (Sagan's "the cosmos is all there is") might be scientifically viable. At this point, scientists exile themselves from the tribe for saying so, but it might not stay that way if the gaps refuse to close and/or point to external sources.