Thanks for these answers. In large part I agree with your statements about math attempting to prove (or I suppose in some cases like IDers - disprove) evolution, only to come up short.
I think the crux of my problem, however, is a bit two-fold, and admittedly they both stem from either a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge in the fields of math and evolutionary biology. So here is my central question that I'm trying to relate to in reading this Hoyle review -
We have plenty of evidence of the so-called "microevolution", and creationists are going to continue to deny "macroevolution", at least on a larger scale of changes. They may agree that reproductive isolation creates species changes eventually, which ironically is macroevolution (or speciation) defined, but they do not accept such accumulation over longer periods of time. So when I start reading folks like Hoyle, whom many IDers will borrow concepts from (among others), they will demonstrate mathematically just how highly improbable it is to have so many phenotypical accumulations giving rise to such biological diversity. Now in my gut I feel they're doing two things wrong:
1. Misunderstanding (sometimes deliberately) biological mutation and natural selection
2. Failing to take into account other factors such as PE, and so on.
I believe I can demonstrate #1 pretty well. But #2 is where I'm having a bit of difficulty - am I wrong about other factors playing a role in the so called "macroevolutionary" process? If so, how could I explain this a bit better? I've always been under the assumption that the primary role involved is slow-gradual steps. How about horizontal gene transfer, or cascade genes? Sorry if it sounds like I'm taking shots in the dark - as I mentioned my knowledge on this is a bit limited.
Thanks again for any help.