The point is that, statistically, it appears that we live in an indifferent universe.
The secularist, then, reasons that this is probably because we do live in an indifferent universe.
The apologist's claim is that we can't presume to know how God would do things.
And though either position could conceivably be so, the former is a logical progression based on the observable facts, and the latter is an ad hoc rationalization.
IOW, the first position is a one-to-one correspondence; whereas, the second (apologist) position must (circularly) assume that out of all the options/choices available to God, it just conveniently happens that he acts in such a way that it appears that we live in an indifferent universe.