It doesn't mean you couldn't in theory make a fine, honest, and impressive mathematical argument for design someday. The problem is that all the attempts of which I am aware look like deliberate hocus-pocus. There has been no effort to avoid strawman presentations of ridiculous models in which complex things are required to jump together all at once from tiny components. There has been no attempt to address the actual implications of abiogenesis research in selecting just WHAT to compute the probability OF.
This has so poisoned the well that I basically never bother to check the math and just go straight to playing "Find the idiocies in the model." They never fail to turn up.
We're dealing with phenomena that communicate either personally or impersonally with our reason and senses. It stands to reason that communication cannot take place without an assembly of some kind; an assembly that behaves with considerable constancy. Can the word "considerable" be quantified? Have I made too many assumptions so far? Are these questions only an "insane village idiot" would ask?