Dragging "Darwinism", which is a theory of evolution, into an argument about abiogenesis, which is life coming from non-living stuff, is a hallmark of Creationism. Creationist are known to argue in bad faith. Best just to rid the space of Creationist arguments. Like Mark Twain once wrote, if you wrestle with pigs, you'll get very dirty, and the pigs just might enjoy it.

See my response above. Neo-Darwinianism has nothing to do with explaining the origin of life. It was strictly concerned with explaining the mechanism (genetics) underpinning Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. And the fact that the OP has engaged in name calling that isn't even correct kind of implies that their objection is ideological rather than merely logical.

Because the first two sentences in the GP comment are false and the third is a non-sequitur.

It is great that you've found a way to feel superior to others with your purpose narrative.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, and please don't cross into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fair enough

So... you flagged me because you think I'm making some supposed statement of superiority?

Also, what "purpose" narrative?

Is contradicting the Neo-Darwinist model of life somehow not allowed?

Does contradicting it make me a closet Christian, in your eyes?

Because I don't see an answer in Neo-Darwinism or any religion.

I'm happy not knowing, just as I'm happy to criticize people who claim to know.

I didn't flag you, dang flagged me for criticising your character instead of an idea. In any case, I think there is a case of false dichotomy going on here.