I liked the illustrations. That was the only good thing about this book. It's not as badly written as some other religious apologetic works, but it is so juvenile, condescending, and misleading that it was still a struggle to read.
The basic gist of the book is that everything is too complicated to have come about by chance and we still don't understand how some things work, therefore the Bible is right and God exists. (And not just any old god, but specifically the Christian god.) Even allowing for the fact that this book was written in 1986 and there have been plenty of discoveries since then to blow this premise out of the water, it's still ridiculously juvenile to assert that if we don't understand something then God did it.
Even though the book says it's about evolution, it has some major problems right from the start. First, it confuses "evolution" (the slow change of things over time) with "abiogenesis" (the origin of life.) This is a mistake that lots of creationists continue to make; evolution makes no claims to explain how life started, only how it evolved over millions of years into the array of lifeforms we see today. Science admits that we don't know exactly how life began on Earth, but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume that the Genesis account in the Bible is correct. It (falsely) accuses scientists of clinging to dogma while offering only a different dogma in return.
For a book that claims it wants to use science to support creationism, science and evolution itself is only mentioned in the first 8 chapters. The remaining 12 are dedicated to appeals to emotion, appeals to ignorance, asking leading questions, and, weirdly enough a feeble attempt to tackle the problem of suffering and free will (we need to learn to accept God's rule and become good little slaves), and to prove that the Bible is a reliable scientific source by citing all the incidental historical details that the Bible gets right to "prove" the the Bible is true (a claim explored in far greater detail in "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell and "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. If you have the stomach for it, I suggest you check them out.) It even talks about how the Earth will be when God returns and the dead are raised and all that fun stuff that's supposed to happen after Armageddon. If you "make the right choice," of course.
Something that really bugged me was that the book tries to tear evolution apart by pointing out all of the gaps in understanding or the fossil record or anything else that science hasn't perfectly explained yet. But when the book talks about the Genesis account, it says that we don't know exactly how God made the heavens and the earth... but that's okay; God still did it. Here's a quote from the third chapter, page 25:
"As with other things that are misrepresented or misunderstood, the first chapter of the Bible deserves a fair hearing. The need is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework. Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the 'how' of creation."
So, an ancient book written by desert goat-herders deserves a "fair hearing" but the mountains of scientific evidence supporting evolution can be dismissed as "mold[ing the facts] to fit some theoretical framework"? (I love how apologists end up accusing science of the very sin they are committing themselves.) And it's also okay for the Bible to not explain how everything was made, but if one "missing link" is unaccounted for then the entire theory of evolution is debunked? Again, even allowing for the time this book was written it's still so simple-minded, blind, and unconvincing that it's insulting.
TL:DR - "Life--How did it get here?" is basically a watered-down, colorfully-illustrated version of the same old, tired apologist arguments trying to use science to prove that the Bible is true, with the same unconvincing result.