It's just an allusion to the anthropic principle. I would say four things:

• both Venus and Mars are in the Sun's habitable zone (although they're not habitable for other reasons), so it's quite a bit further and quite a bit closer for us to freeze or boil respectively. 
• the orbit of the Earth has a major influence on surface temperature, but almost no influence on pressure. So a heavy planet with a thick atmosphere would be closer to the sun, because the atmospheric pressure would be higher. For example at 98 atmospheres water will boil at about 310ºC, and freeze at about -8º.
• if there is one specific distance that is ideal for some unknown reason, and it was deliberately set up that the Earth was there, then we would expect the Earth's orbit to be circular. It isn't.
• there are plenty of other organic solvents and chemistries which would function outside what we consider to be a star's habitable zone. Some of them can be found on Earth in the form of various extremophile life-forms, others are theoretical or exist only in a lab. In other conditions it is possible that life could arise from one of those systems on a planet whose orbit is outside the range where Water is liquid.

My response is simple enough to copy from a previous thread.

 Thank you all for the answers.

1. Obviously this is incorrect, since the earth's orbit is not a perfect circle. It's an ellipse, and thusly its distance from the sun varies.

2. If it were correct, it wouldn't matter. If life is at all possible, given its requirements, these requirements could be fulfilled at any point in the universe. That those requirements are fulfilled here isn't mere coincedence or design. Given an infinite number of possible scenarios, somewhere among said scenarios there must be one that fulfills the requirements. Life, thusly exists here because it is supported. Not the other way around.

   a. What if we found a rock that is found to be incredibly valuable, but also very rare as it can only form in very specific circumstances. If you find such a rock and it's in an environment where those circumstances are available, does that mean that those circumstances were available because of design? No. They had to be available somewhere, and at those places where they are, the rock forms.

   b. Life, as we know it ("as we know it" is a very important phrase to understand), is no more a special phenomenon than any other we witness in the universe, except that we place special emphasis on it, because it is us. Otherwise, like any other phenomenon that has requirements, it develops when those requirements are available.

 I love the quote. Thanks.

What I really don't like about that is assumming that 'we' would need to be supported on a habitable planet. I see no reason why extraterrestrial lifeforms would neccessarily need to live in the pressure and temperature ranges that we find comfortable. There are living things that can survive in vacuums (tardigrades), in over 1000 times the sea level pressure, in temperatures around 800°C, and at just above absolute zero (tardigrades again). The range on conditions that living things survive over on earth is extreme. There was a period in earth's history when the entire planet was covered in ice. Did life end under those conditions? No, it did not. There are living things that can survive in ice and ocean water beneath ice. So would 'we' be screwed if planetary conditions were very different? Yes, humans might be in trouble if massive environmental changes took place. Would life itself be screwed if planetary conditions were very different? Maybe not.