[PhatHead]

As to the 'mathematical proof'. There is no such thing. All I've seen is someone pulling a statistical analysis (out of their @#$%) of something that no one claims to understand....The final flaw in the statistical analysis is ignoring the numerator.

I think you're over-simplifying just a little... the only (or at least only one I've heard of...) guy making the statistical arguments is William Dembski, who has a masters in statistics and doctorate in mathematics. You may disagree with his reasoning, but I think he understands math. Regardless of whether you adhere to ID, creationism or modern TOE, the origin of life is quite a remakable and, yes, improbable thing, don't you think?

[pending]

Are you suggesting Dumbski has provided a mathematical proof of God?

[Dimensio]

I think you're over-simplifying just a little... the only (or at least only one I've heard of...) guy making the statistical arguments is William Dembski, who has a masters in statistics and doctorate in mathematics. You may disagree with his reasoning, but I think he understands math.

The problem isn't with his math, it's with the underlying premises on which his math is based. He assumes a specific set of requirements for the first life form, but there's no actual basis for his assumptions. If his initial assumption is crap, it doesn't matter what math he uses because his results are meaningless.