bill- you say i should be assured,as though it was an unassalable given,but then qualified it with ifs and whens.my first response posted [but not appearing- again!] was to ask you to provide some link to this groundbreaking discovery. but having re-read your post i see no such claim.
has there been much since urey/miller . after repeated experiments less than half the amino acids needed to even start anything even remotely likely to begin life were produced.and that was with directed experiment.the general theory of evolution posits no intelligence,as of course atheism demands , and why ,i suggest,they either state that science is closing in on the answers,or that they can live with not knowing,and shrug it off.the first is a faith statement,the second is evading the problem of very basic science that even i can comprehend,ie life only comes from life.
whilst appreciating your studies in the formation of argument,i suggest that not even with such training are you safe from your own worldview and the presuppositions stemming from such mindset.
the creationist generally admits to his presuppositions but despite popular caricature the creationist argument encompasses the scientific.therefore the dichotemy you present between the religious and the scientific is false at worst,and exagerated at best.

musket- the similarities between pagan myths and the Jesus story are grossly exagerated and only seem valid by pulling bits out of the whole .some of those myths often appealed to actually follow and borrow from the Christ story.