Wiki's abiogenesis article is decent. For the books, no, we haven't been able to create life. Once we do such, then the theories get MUCH stronger.
Alright then, I'll be sure to check it out. Thank you.
If you want to get into origin theories... funny enough, panspermia is the theory that got a shot in the arm recently with some decent evidence in its favor. It's possible and makes a whole lot of sense. The problem with origin theories is that we've got so little to go on versus everything else... where else have we seen life or know where life has started? We can see evolution, we can see it work and see its effects. Origins are another story.
Are you talking about Panspermia in the sense of an accidental transfering of biological material through meteorites and whatnot, or an intentional "seeding" of biological material by other forms of intelligent life?
I am simply showing that you are aiming at the wrong target. Looking towards evolution for life origins is going to yield nothing. In contrast, the origins of life could be pretty much anything... from panspermia to a pink unicorn from Jupiter. The reason science does not touch on ID or creationism is simply because God or any other supernatural being simply isn't science. No tests can be made, no predictions, no evidence, and most importantly of the bunch... no ability to be falsified. All scientific theories can be falsified, find a horse fossil in the Precambrian area of the geologic column and evolution is toast. ID/Creationism simply say "Goddidit" and continue on. It's not science.
Right, yeah. I suppose that belief in ID is highly influenced by one's faith. Any evidence in favor of ID is probably that much more convincing to folks who are religious because belief in God (for them anyway) is fact. From a scientific and theoretical perspective however, you're completely right. It really can't be considered science since it's not testable in any way.
Thanks for the insights. I'll do some reading.