[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
So I skimmed ahead and he talks of the absurdity (my word not his) of going with a Creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
He doesn't write about the absurdity of "going with" a Creator. He refutes a particular argument for a Creator -- namely, the watchmaker argument. He refutes it because it's a fallacious argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Then what he says about the origin of life is SPG spontaneous generation probability and leaves it at that (from I found with my brief skimming the book).

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what part of the book you're referring to. Dawkins never wrote anything positive about "spontaneous generation." He has given a couple of plausible conjectures -- one in The Selfish Gene, and another in The Blind Watchmaker -- for how things may have gotten started. But he cautions that they are just conjectures. And spontaneous generation is not among them.

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me he has more than that for the origin life. Otherwise why the quoted first sentence?

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not referring to the origin of life (i.e., replicators) in the first quoted sentence. He's referring to the existence of complex organisms and biological features.

We don't know how the first replicators came into existence (though we can speculate about a few of the possibilities). But once those replicators did come into existence, their evolution into complex biological features such as the human eye is well understood. It is "a mystery no longer because it is solved."