"I tried Kevin's logic by substitution: if the manufacture of 747s by intelligence is scientifically impossible, then they must have been made by a tornado through a junk yard no matter how improbable that is."
Ah, but we know that the manufacture of 747s by intelligence is NOT scientifically impossible, so your "substitution logic" is invalid.
What evidence do you have that creation is not scientifically impossible?
"Let us also examine 'no matter how improbable it is.' The probability of evolving just one protein molecule is 2.3 x 10^-75."
Not true, but let's pretend it is. That probability DOESN'T mean you have to make that many tries before you get one. It ONLY means that on average it would take that many tries for one of the tries, ANY of those tries, to be successful. You get it on the very first try.
"Before believing, a scientist needs 0.95, therefore 2.3 x 10^-75 misses the mark by a little bit."
You are mixing apples and oranges. That "0.95" you keep quoting refers to the level of confidence a scientist must have to believe the results described by a group of data. It has nothing to do with probability. For example, the probability that an asteroid as large as the one that killed the dinosaurs will strike the Earth at JUST THIS MOMENT (pause....whew!) is so high as to be negligible. But scientists have a confidence level of 0.95 that one will strike us again some day.
I would advise you to learn more about probability and the scientific method before you go shooting you mouth off again, but I doubt you'll listen.
Kevin L. O'Brien