“As a part of their teleological argument, IDers argue that the earth is specifically suited to life. If the earth were slightly closer to or farther away from the sun, life could not exist. If we did not have the right mix of elements, life could not exist. And on it goes. They say that the chances for such a perfect combination are too high to be chance”.

No, the observation comes from physicists… that the observed configuration is **completely unexpected** by any natural model that we have ever been able to derive… in a manner that is EXTREMELY pointed toward the production of carbon based life, over a very fine region of the observed universe.

Is Our Universe Natural?
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

“But this overlooks (or purposefully ignores) the fact that the universe contains “billions and billions” of stars”.

No, it doesn’t.

“And according to the implications of Einstein’s theories, there could be any number of universes”.

LOL!!!… No, that comes originally from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein’s theory most naturally extends to predict one single finite closed spherical universe.

“Even if the odds against life are a billion to one, we still end up with a large number of planets capable of sustaining life”.

Actually, planets that are capable of sustaining life are predicted to exist only in a very fine region of the observed universe, but your misconceptions have been very amusing.

I have an observation though… since your facts are so far off the mark, you end up projecting the image of a rabid atheist who doesn’t care about the facts any more than a young-earth creationist does, rather than an agnostic who would accept proof of whatever if they saw it.