You appear to be attempting to make a God-of-the-Gaps argument, but you are unaware that "scientific progress" is widening the gap when it comes to the origin o

You appear to be attempting to make a God-of-the-Gaps argument, but you are unaware that "scientific progress" is widening the gap when it comes to the origin of life question. For example, in Darwin's day it was assumed that the cell was a simple blob containing life-force, but now we have powerful electron microscopes and it turns out that our initial assumptions about how simple life must be were completely wrong. And yes, I read the article. I've read many such articles. There are a lot of "theories" out there, but none that pass the smell test, although most of them try to snow the unsophisticated reader with a bunch of acronyms and jargon.