Ok...well here's a good test to see if their claims are really as out their as you claim. Because to me, and I don't want you to take offense to this because it might ruin the friendly nature of this discussion (matt notwithstanding), but it seems you're worried about attacking the source rather than the idea. Which seems pretty typical of evolutionists. Many of them can't win the argument over ideas, so they try to win the war of public opinion, although the way they do it is rather underhanded. (I'm not attributing that motive to you, but the end result not matter what your reasoning is the same. The point of this debate isn't, "How reliable are creationists?" Its how is abiogenesis possible?)

Anyways, here's the way to test whether or not their claims are really out there or not. Just refer to a way in which homochirality can be acheived. Because I don't see how Orgel's comments are taken out of context. Orgel isn't critical of abiogenesis, he's just admitting to a shortcoming. 'God and Science' didn't seem to imply that Orgel didn't subscribe to the possibility of abiogenesis, or that he was critical of it, they seemed to imply that he admitted to the hurdle of acheiving homochirality.