One well-known question has been asked of Dawkins for many years now; What is the Origin of Life? And for many years now, Dawkins has been careful and determined not to answer it. The method by which he leaves it unanswered is again that familiar demagoguery. He loses the question in a fog of semantics, seeks to give the impression he is making a scientific statement, and makes allegations against the other side, rather than actually giving an answer. This is a classic Darwinist tactic. The question is smothered by demagoguery since he has no scientific answer. Dawkins has to date expended many words on the question of the "origin of life," but has still never actually answered it.
He repeated the tactic during an interview with al-Jazeera television, when the question was again left unanswered.
Why is it that Dawkins resorts to incomprehensible and meaningless demagoguery on every occasion, rather than giving a straightforward answer? The reason is clear: Because, like all other Darwinists, Dawkins has no logical account to offer. According to Darwinists, life began with the supposed emergence of the first cell from muddy water, in a completely uncontrolled environment, as a result of a combination of blind coincidences. This impossible idea was subsequently definitively refuted, and it was realized that not one single building block, let alone a whole cell, could ever emerge from the primordial soup that Darwinists hypothesize, not even after billions of years. Indeed, the fact that it is impossible for a living organism to form in the environment known as the primordial soup entered the scientific literature as a result of recent experiments by scientists. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4702336.stm)
But what makes the Darwinist claim that "the first cell formed in a primordial soup" totally impossible is something else. No functioning protein can currently be manufactured in the laboratory. The cell is the sum total of such complex and flawless systems that it is impossible to manufacture even one of its components. Darwinism has still not recovered from the shock of that. Darwinists have no consistent explanation for the formation of even a single protein. They just keep producing demagogic stories about extraordinarily complex systems and structures. The fact is that they cannot explain how life began. Richard Dawkins has to clarify how the theory of evolution can account for the emergence of living things when not even a single protein, the building block of those living things, can ever emerge by chance.