Your answer was a given. The authors were attempting to explain a scientific foundation for why your answer is the reason for life. MY POINT was that they can explain the science in a way that is easier for the layman to understand THEIR SCIENCE.
To say “in the beginning there is G-d” is not a relevant point to my criticism of the article, which is not about the conclusion but the poor communication for the lay person in the verbal path the author took.
It is good for folks to see that even science has no real answer for life. It is even better when that is demonstrated with greater clarity for the lay person.
My head swims when biologists speak in terms of “...cides” and the like. In my discipline, as in any, I am sure I could lose peoples’ attention with certain concepts and the terminology. Nevertheless, that which I do understand is this: all the ingredients for baking a cake exist, by prior purpose and acquisition, in my well equipped kitchen. Yet somehow with all the right ingredients, there would not be cause capable, in some fashion, to produce a cake outside of one of intelligent design and ability. I would grow exceedingly hunger if I had to wait for some mindless force to serve it up. And what impersonal, heartless, random “baker” would be pleased to serve me cake?