Is the use of the Miller-Urey experiment in Biology textbooks today proof of evolutionary desperation?

Better question: who cares what you think?

"God did it" explains nothing, even if we had no science. Sorry for your (repeated) loss.

it makes more sense than an invisible magic sky daddy ...

It demonstrated that amino acids can form naturally. Amino acids are the building blocks of RNA and DNA. Aside from this what is your point? So far as I know no scientist is publishing that the question of abiogenesis is solved. Neither did Urey Miller. This seems to be a claim put forth by creationists who don't understand and think saying the experiment didn't explain abiogenesis is a great point to make. The experiment is important that it showed the building blocks can form naturally, not that it ever claimed to prove abiogenesis. Also, you do know that the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in 1952, right? There's been multiple experiments since then along the same lines. One of the more telling ones has produced RNA in a plausible prebiotic environment, among other things. Finally, why didn't you ask this over in the biology section?

Miller-Urey demonstrated what it hypothesized - you can't debunk that - but it's all beside the point as we now know that the same amino acids featured in Miller-Urey are widely disseminated in the solar system via comets and meteorites. Evolution describes the origin of species not the origin of life.

of course they're desperate. liars always are.

Have you got it right! However, your respondents just don’t seem to get it. Kara apparently doesn’t recognized that if there have been multiple better experiments since Miller-Urey in 1952, then why are they still hyping Miller-Urey as “proof” that abiogenesis is feasible? The whole point of your question is that textbooks are still using this and a boatload of other “proofs” or “icons” of evolution that have long been debunked. The reason for this is obvious. They want to indoctrinate students with whatever false evidence they still have while they scheme up something better to replace it until eventually that is also disproved – and the cycle continues. In the meantime we have deceived millions of people into believing a materialistic myth based on assumptions and ever changing deceptions. Another classic is the forged pictures of embryos by Haeckel that also still appear in textbooks today. Kara is also completely mistaken with her comment that Miller-Urey showed that “building blocks can form NATURALLY” (emphasis mine). Again, the whole point is that it has now been shown that earth’s conditions were nothing like the experiment indicating that these “building blocks” could NOT have formed naturally! Saying that these building blocks formed life is the same as saying that flour, eggs, water and other ingredients will just naturally form a cake if left on their own! Lastly, it amuses me when folks like don insist that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life despite the fact that the “origin of species” could not have taken place until we had the first one! In fact, he is wrong anyway. Evolutionism pertains to the evolution of all matter and energy in the universe as well as social evolution of man. There is a whole raft of evolutionary theories besides the biological one. Chemical evolution (somewhat of a misnomer since it does not pertain to the evolution of chemicals), is sometimes associated with abiogenesis. Nevertheless, while they insist that evolution does not include abiogenesis, they hypocritically denigrate creation scientists with cute phrases like “God did it”. If we are to be fair and compare theories equally, biological creation theory does not include how God created; it just starts with the originally created kinds, wherever they may have come from.