From a

 review of 

Gerald Schroeder's 

"Genesis and the Big Bang."

Bantam 1990

"A core thesis of Schroeder's is that biochemical processing in the simplest re- producing organism-his example is a living bacterium is so complicated that random combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids could never initiate it; therefore, divine intervention was essential for the origin of life. According to Schroeder, the "laws of nature cannot account for the appearance of life on Earth."

(All the possible combinations of what he is talking about? "random combinations of amino acids and nucleic acids" would have taken longer than the earth is old to have randomly, and properly put itself together.)

The statistical improbability of life is hardly a new topic. Nor is it covered in any depth by Schroeder. However, no substantive discussion of this topic can be made without struggling with the definition of life and, except in his glossary, Schroeder skirts around definitions. If one takes a single cell organism as the sine qua non for biological existence, then Schroeder's argument holds water. But life processes can proceed in a precellular world. One of my favorite answers to the question, "When did life begin?" is: "The first time one enzyme out-enzymed another enzyme." With relatively low activation energies, certain nucleic acids have autocatalytic kinetics and the capability for self-replication, and simple lipid bilayers can form closed vesicles (liposomes). These facts help make the improbable just a bit more probable. They are well established aspects of modern biochemistry not mentioned by Schroeder. They represent transitions from the strictly inanimate to the cellular world, and must be considered before a logical postivist resigns to divine intervention for the origin of life.

"With relatively low activation energies, certain nucleic acids have autocatalytic kinetics and the capability for self-replication, and simple lipid bilayers can form closed vesicles (liposomes). These facts help make the improbable just a bit more probable."

I don't know when this review was written. But biological and chemical processes do not create NEW information such as what is needed in your DNA

SO:

"These facts help make the improbable just a bit more probable."

No, not really, they really dont

and

"They represent transitions from the strictly inanimate to the cellular world"

To this day 

nobody can explain how life 

came from non life 

and the answer is pretty simple,

Because that's not where it came from.

Life always comes from life.

Period.

So yeah...

I'd give a big naw to:

"They represent transitions from the strictly inanimate to the cellular world"

Schroeder's assertation, the 

"laws of nature cannot account for the appearance of life on Earth."

is still 100% absolutely true 34 years later

(Even if one agrees or disagrees 

with his reasoning as to why that is)

While:

"With relatively low activation energies, certain nucleic acids have autocatalytic kinetics and the capability for self-replication, and simple lipid bilayers can form closed vesicles (liposomes). These facts help make the improbable just a bit more probable. They are well established aspects of modern biochemistry not mentioned by Schroeder. They represent transitions from the strictly inanimate to the cellular world"

Does absolutely nothing to explain where the information in our DNA came from. 

Information, particularly in highly complex sequential patterns is always the result of a Brain and has still never been seen randomly generated in nature.

Simple.

Easy Peasey.