A “radical new theory” for the origin of life, as presented by Michael Marshall at New Scientist, “rewrites the story of how life on Earth began.” It is so radical that it is nearly identical to a joke used by creationist speakers mocking evolution. One such speaker, showing the folly of evolution, would quip that a fully-assembled car was not designed; it just “oozed up out of the pavement.” He got a good laugh from the audience.
David Coppedge, “Origin-of-Life Research Abandons Chemistry, Turns to Miracles” at Creation-Evolution Headlines
Marshall had said, of traditional OOL theories, “When put into practice in the lab, however, these ideas don’t produce anything particularly lifelike. It is, some researchers are starting to realise, like trying to build a car by making a chassis and hoping wheels and an engine will spontaneously appear.”
As Coppedge sees it,
What follows in the article is a tedious recounting of the history of failed origin-of-life theories: genetics-first, metabolism-first, container-first. Marshall and the evolutionists he marshals together know full well that any of the basic requirements for life – metabolism, a container and a code – are unlikely to spontaneously form separately, much less together at the same time and place.
But they must believe that it did somehow. The alternative is unmentionable: life was designed? Perish the thought!
David Coppedge, “Origin-of-Life Research Abandons Chemistry, Turns to Miracles” at Creation-Evolution Headlines
Actually, it doesn’t matter that much whether the theories are fruitful as long as no one is claiming that there is any design involved. No matter what the evidence.
See also: At New Scientist: Origin of life happened all at once in a chemical Big Bang. It’s basically a rehash of many wishful theories, united by a single drive: To somehow get an origin of life out of a mindless cosmos. The best thing about such theories is their inventiveness.