The point of this article is to say that abiogenesis, being the bridge between chemistry and biology, cannot be explained by science.

Usual anti-evolution confusion reigns: confusion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Check! Conflating a myriad of hypothesis with the conclusion that no solution is possible? Check! Mentioning of irreducible complexity? Check! The presumption that biologists regard Darwin as some sort of infallible deity? Check!

It's well written, but it's full of trickery. Consider: "Moreover, ‘chirality’ in biology demands chemistry to supply ‘left-handed’ amino acids and ‘right-handed’ genetic molecules". This presumes that early biology had the same requirements as modern biology.

Or "Consequently [since 1990], numerous new speculations are attempting to provide different explanation for the location of the origin of life on earth. There are several suggestions ranging from life beginning in deep sea thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe (Panspermia)." But Hoyle was talking about this in 1982, which was 8 years before the given reference.

Or "geneticists proclaim that by the assistance of RNA, structure of DNA can decide the structure of proteins" which is again, simply not true. There's post-translational modifications, there are environmental effects - DNA is only one of several facts which go into the structure.

Or even "Modern genetics fails to incorporate the plastic propensities of a living organism." WTF? That's slid in there without explanation. Any book which ties genetics and paleontology together must talk about the plasticity organisms through time.