You undermine the complexity of DNA if you think it could just randomly happen by chance.
If there is no intelligent designer involved, it is chance. Accidental. Coincidence.
If there's a lottery and you have to pick 100 numbers in order to win, what are the odds of winning?
That would be a better analogy to describe the odds.
That is a terrible analogy
The very sort response is yes things are random after a fashion but given enough events, enough time and the nature of the chemistry involved random does not mean roll of a single many sided dice and probability of life as you know it is likely not as low as that analogy would lead you to believe.
First there is increasing complexity- a fully formed eye did not appear out of goop but likely started as a single light sensing cell. Moreover different species evolved light sensing organs in different ways (some of the underground sea animals being a good example of alternative light sensing cells appearing), more on that in a moment.
Going back to basic chemistry or indeed basic physics it is noted I can in no way know where all subatomic particles are (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), this line of thought then leads to entropy which also agrees you can not know but given a single gram of an element contains something in the order of 10^23 atoms (see Avogadro constant) the singular distribution does not really matter. This gives us chemistry for even if I can not know where things are I can still with certainty that a reaction will happen at a given temperature and pressure every time and this definitely takes entropy into account (see the free energy equation).
On DNA itself- many things happen here. As mentioned there is not just one type of DNA that works which seriously damages the "how to win" thing. Life is also fairly self selecting (certain errors in DNA lead to a self destructing/non dividing cell) let alone stuff at a macroscopic level (see "conventional" evolution). Most of the more successful types of life also split their DNA in half and have it recombine it and saying "in half" also fails to account for other interesting combinations (mitochondrial DNA and later in life other interesting aberrations (recently wheat was kind of sequenced and it is noted it is the combination of a few ancient grasses), copying errors, radiation induced errors..... ).
Related to basic chance you have to also consider if life has been around for however many millions of years and life cycles tending to measured in years at best (especially as complexity decreases) multiplied across the number of "reactions" happening is not a "wow that was lucky" event, doubly so when combined with the self selecting nature of DNA based life.
Back to the main idea of the topic I think I will have to echo TrolleyDave and say religions evolved from attempted explanations and got warped/taken in by various things along the way. Personally I find the evolution of religions quite fascinating (both how they merge, adopt parts of others and branch and overall trends like the trend towards monotheism*), I can not say I especially see them being especially useful today (indeed in the past I have said net negative as of fairly recent history and I stand by that).
*going evolution again the more interesting one for me on the trend to monotheism was that polytheism necessitates a spread of worship which leads to a less unified front against a monotheistic faith.