There is a surprisingly common statistical/logical error where someone picks an element from a large random sample that has some special properties and ascribes a unique origin to it as a result of those properties.

One famous example is the "Face on Mars," where among the many random hills and geologic formations on Mars photographed by Viking 1 spacecraft, one appears like a human face. Sober scientists had to explain to a gullible general public that this structure was not some alien artwork but that something "face-like" is bound to occur in a sufficiently large random dataset.

Other common examples are include when an image of Christ appears in unevenly toasted bread and some naive people ascribe it as a religious sign... "from heaven."

As context: Mathematician John Nash studied how to calculate a particular configuration of random points (say) would contain a particular spatial pattern (e.g., a square, or the outline of a teapot). Suppose in some deep space astrophotograph we find stars or galaxies in the pattern of the McDonald's restaurant double-arch logo. Would we conclude that there is something in the universe that deliberately placed this corporate logo? Of course not... Given enough random stars, we're BOUND to find some stars that fall into that double-arch pattern.

To believe that the McDonald's logo was "deliberately designed and placed in the heavens" would be a fallacy.

THAT's the fallacy I need named.