Replies

"Evolution's greatest task is to give a good explanation of the biochemical/molecular events that gave rise to life, which it can't"

It needs to do no such thing. There is ample evidence of evolution and evolutionary theory. One day we may discover the method by which the first cell arose but we do not need this evidence to study evolution or to know evolution actually occurs. Scientists are different from creationists in that we (I'm an archaeologist) don't make up reasons that Life first appeared. We may speculate how it happend but no scientist will defend speculation without evidence.

Creationists look to their mythology and holy books to provide answers and then seek to prove this dogma.

I don't necessarily disagree. Evolution happens, gene frequencies changes, and animals adapt to selection pressures. I'm not the kind of creationist who thinks evolution doesn't happen, but I also do not believe evolution is the correct explanation to the origin of life on this planet. The biochemistry and molecular biology of life is too complex for any of it to have heppened by chance. All of the molecular reactions of life exist in an interlinked chemical equilibrium. You can't get any of this to start "first" because it all has to exist or none of it will. If you can deal with that, fine. Until "how life appears from chemicals only" gets explaiend to me at the molecular level, I will be forever a believer in creation.