Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

You obviously don't know that a random bag of molecules cannot fertilize the egg cell, convert substrate into product, cut the introns and rearrange the exons, etc. So, according to you -"there is no target goal in mind, but the environment is what it is". So, if the enviornment is egg cell then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a sperm cell. If the enviornment is a specific substrate then again, molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a specific functional enzyme to achieve enzyme-substrate specificity. If the enviornment is intron-exon gene structure then molecules will just magically arrange themselves into a 200 specific proteins to gain RNA splicing ability. Because the environment is what it is... you just wave your magic wand of 'selective pressure' and molecules will just start flying around to form whatever shape you wish. Your mantras about environment clearly demonstrates that you don't have the capacity for rational discussion about the issue at hand.

How does the phrase "selective pressure" explain bio-organization?

I will leave you in your magical kingdom with your 'selective pressure' because in your posts there is nothing of substance worth rebutting.

An already dealt deck of cards doesn't have probability because probability is calculated by dividing the number of favorable outcomes by the number of total possible outcomes.

It just talks about the pre-existing viral J protein that acquired the ability to bind a different protein on E. coli, called OmpF, once the LamB protein, to which it normally binds, was turned off. Since both, LamB and OmpF have similar three-dimensional structures, a few mutations in the viral gene fortuitously led to ability of J protein to bind to OmpF. Hence, one out of three functional pre-existing proteins gained the ability to bind a protein similar to one it normally binds, without any change in its native 3-dimensional structure.

This paper has nothing to do with the issue at hand since it talks neither about evolution of new functional protein folds nor about the ratio of functional amino acid sequences versus the vast combinatorial space.

And this binding ability proves what exactly? That you can produce circulatory system, all joints and bones in your body, or complex, image-forming eyes 100 times independently with 10^43 changes in the spatial positions of molecules?