The basic argument of the apologists Zacharias and Vitale is this
And that is at best pontificating on subjects they do not understand.
Hoyle and Wickramasingh’s calculation has little relevance because nobody proposes that life began with randomly assembled proteins.
Hoyle is regarded as a crank in the subject of the origin of life, and most of his work is intended to promote his own ideas of panspermia. Let us also note that he was an astronomer, not any sort of biologist, and that he died in 2001. Citing his work is hardly a good sign. Indeed it’s evidence that Zacharias hasn’t got any good arguments.
Essentially, the apologetic arguments focus on the need to acknowledge God as part of what it means to be human. They argue that throwing God away or going on as if he doesn't exist will not lead to complete life.
And they are wrong. Indeed their main argument is that Micah and Jesus included the love of God as a great commandment therefore it must be vital. That’s not much of an argument.
Indeed the main point seems to be to belittle the good that non-believers do - with no justification.
Let us also note this assertion:
When you look at the Mosaic Law, there are 613 laws given in total. They were divided into the moral, ceremonial, and civic codes
There is no clear division in the text. Look at Deuteronomy 22 - what Is civic law and what is moral and what is ceremonial ?
You cant find a lie in any of this. The apologist speaks a basic truth
I’ve found falsehood - and do you really think that Zacharias doesn’t know that the Mosaic Law is not divided in the way he says ?