Hardly. He's not addressing the real world, just a straw man that he can knock down in place of the real world. Perhaps a compilation of all of his mistaken assumptions (both spoken and nonspoken) will be in order for a later post.
but his specific math is not speculation.
Has anyone on this thread ever questioned his math? I don't think so. You've been harping on this for the entire thread, and yet I haven't seen more than one person question has math (and I don't think you actually addressed that person). When we say "errors", we do not mean strictly mathematical errors, we can mean argumentative errors, errors in assumption, etc, as well. Of course, I don't have to mention to you (for a third time) that math is just a tool, and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) is a big factor in any scientific analysis(also for the third time in this thread).
The assumptions are stated. You may not agree with them(you obviously don't, but then no one has come close to forming a complex molecule from scratch even using intelligent methods) but they are valid for reactions showing no preference for configurations of the constituent units.
You speak of the real world. Well, in the real world, there are no "undesigned" chemical reactions outside of life that have produced the molecules being discussed. As for your speculation about the formation of the complex molecules by accidental conjugation of parts in interstellar clouds, do you realize what a vacuum is?
I'm also certain that the numbers come out the same when parts are randomly assembled. IOW, it does not matter whether one person flips a coin 100 times or 100 people flip a coin once, the probability that all of the tosses result in heads is the same.
So why don't you question it? Why do you reject it without evidence against it? Why do you attempt a snow job when you do not know of anything wrong with what the author of the article says? Clearly your beliefs are not based on science but on your emotional predilections.