[Dimensio]

And does he assume a different set of requirements for the first life form than what is generally accepted?

The problem is that he assumes a specific requirement for the first life form, when there's no reason to assume that the first life form must be exactly as he claims. There are diverse hypothesis on the nature and origin of the first life form. Dembski assumes that there's only one possible configuration that would have worked -- when few if any biologists even claim this -- and he starts his calculations from there. He's imposing an artifical restriction with no basis in known reality to keep the result so improbable.

[PhatHead]

I see what you mean. Thanks.