Hi Arithus, welcome to EvC!
I've not read either of their books, so I can't help too much with any of their specific claims. I have partially read "A Matter of Days" but that's been about it. However, I have recently seen the way they handle new research first hand, and if this characterization is at all similar to the material in their books, then I'm inclined to believe that most scientists will ignore their work, rather than attempt to respond to it much beyond "They misrepresent science."
I've done some research in the origins of life field, and published in the journal Astrobiology. Reasons to Believe actually referenced this work on their website, which was surprising:
New research designed to identify a viable source of prebiotic phosphorus (critical for life) highlights the intractable chemical problems associated with evolutionary scenarios for the origin of life. Investigators posit iron phosphide minerals delivered to early Earth in meteorites as a source of reactive phosphorus species. Presumably, once these meteorites reached Earth, exposure to surface water transformed phosphide into phosphate and phosphonate compounds, which could then react with prebiotic organic materials. Laboratory experiments seemingly provide support for this scenario, but there are problems. For example, if any calcium or magnesium is present (which surely would have been the case on early Earth), the phosphate species precipitate, rendering them unavailable as a source of reactive phosphorus. This work typifies the significant obstacles researchers encounter as they pursue chemical evolutionary scenarios to account for life’s origin.
Source:
Page not found - Reasons to Believe(Note that one thing I do like about Reasons to Believe is that they're very much on the up-and-up on scientific advances, and they aren't completely hostile to all science. They do try, which is very admirable). Apparently this work is referenced in "Origins of Life," so I guess this post does directly address their book. Interesting.
Their last section, starting with "but there are problems" is where they let their world-view get in the way. It's kind of interesting to see how it worked, since it almost seems as though they read the abstract and the introduction to my paper, then stopped. For instance, the introduction focused on the phosphate problem of the origin of life, wherein calcium and magnesium are efficient at removing phosphate from water, preventing the build-up of this vital element. However, the work, discussion, and conclusion of my paper discussed a way of getting around the calcium and magnesium problem, namely through soluble phosphorus species that can react to form organic phosphorus compounds. So I feel kind of like they chose to completely ignore the meat of that paper, focusing on the historical phosphorus problem.
If my case is at all similar to the case for other scientists, then most people will probably respond along the lines of "Well, that's not correct. Did you even read my conclusions?" Science papers frequently first addresses the problem the authors are seeking to solve in science, and then follows up with a solution. It doesn't look like Reasons to Believe reads the solution, which makes it fairly easy to present a full model.
I fully acknowledge that my case is fairly specific, and probably isn't the same experience for all the scientists addressed by Ross and Rana, so it's hard to say what the response will be.
™ Version 4.2