The materialist view of the origins of life is one of those things that looks okay from a high-level, blurry view, but which turns utterly absurd once you examine it closer. Or perhaps not even that; just when you phrase it correctly.
It seems to be that a chemical reaction became self-perpetuating and everything that’s happened since is that same reaction seeking to perpetuate itself.
How does a chemical reaction have desire?
No matter how you slice it, sooner or later you have to introduce the idea of volition into the story of life. And I really don’t see how you can make out that a chemical reaction can ever have developed volition, so that it actively seeks out the means to keep itself going. Between the blind reaction of, say, combustion and something with the intention to perpetuate itself there is an absolute, categorical gulf.
(And I mean, the very existence of DNA is a stumbling block, quite apart from anything else; how does an information storage system develop accidentally?)
Serpent's Den 
Or, to put it another way: if life is merely the passive response of certain chemicals to certain stimuli, what makes it fundamentally different from any other chemical reaction? If a daisy is just doing in a complex way what a geode does in a simple one, doesn’t that make a daisy just a less efficient kind of geode?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Legend has it that the man who discovered DNA was, on account of its complexity, convinced it could only have been brought to Earth by space aliens.
How on Earth he thought the space aliens themselves ever came to be, that’s what I want to know!
LikeLiked by 1 person