Scientific endeavor has reached a dead end.

After decades of research many good scientists are beginning to swallow the fact that scientific research or more precisely the scientific method might not always guarantee an answer to a given problem in hand. Just as other methodologies the scientific method too has its weaknesses and it can lead you to a road which is a dead end.

The problem of abiogenesis is an unsolvable problem and biologists should accept the existence of life as an axiom of biology.

No biologist has defined life more precisely than the physicist Hubert Yockey, he is absolutely right about this one,

 Dr. Yockey defines the distinction between living and non-living matter as follows:   

“There is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence [the genome] and codes between sequences [the genetic code]. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter.” (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123)

Yockey continues to say this,

Evolution and the origin of life are separate questions. My publications on information theory show that the origin of life is unknowable through scientific methods. All that can be taught in the science classroom about the origin of life is why it is unknowable and why past theories, such as chance and self-organization, had to be discarded. There are many things in science and mathematics that are true, but unknowable. The earlier children learn about the scientific and mathematical concept of unknowability, the better they will be able to grasp the concepts that currently are re-shaping mathematics and science. 

       Hubert Yockey reply to FTE amicus brief 

What Yockey is arguing is quite simple, let's take a small example.

Sequence 1 - "THIS SENTENCE MAKES SENSE" 

Sequence 2 - "IHTS ENTESTEC SKMKEA NSSEE"

From the context of information theory there is no difference between those two sequences because information theory has nothing to do with "meaning", it treats and measures bits in both the sequences equally and cannot see any difference between those two sequences and hence Yockey argues that biological molecules are similar to Sequence 1 i.e. they carry meaning along with them and there is nothing in the physico-chemical world which can naturally produce such sequences because meaning cannot be measured and hence it doesn't fall into the domain of science.

There are many other problems too and I think the most difficult of them all to solve is the error catastrophe.

Lethal mutants and truncated selection together solve a paradox of the origin of life.

Many attempts have been made to describe the origin of life, one of which is Eigen's cycle of autocatalytic reactions [Eigen M (1971) Naturwissenschaften 58, 465-523], in which primordial life molecules are replicated with limited accuracy through autocatalytic reactions. For successful evolution, the information carrier (either RNA or DNA or their precursor) must be transmitted to the next generation with a minimal number of misprints. In Eigen's theory, the maximum chain length that could be maintained is restricted to 100-1000 nucleotides, while for the most primitive genome the length is around 7000-20,000. This is the famous error catastrophe paradox. How to solve this puzzle is an interesting and important problem in the theory of the origin of life.

Natural Selection can only work if there is a preexisting population of self replicating organisms but a self replicating organism by itself is such a complex organism that the chances of it arising naturally surviving all those auto-catalytic reactions is absolutely zero.

Measurement problem is an unsolvable problem in science. 

We all know the bizarre state of Schrodinger's Cat which is in a superposition of dead and alive states. When one tries to open the box a random outcome occurs, in the words of Bohr, a quantum system is closed in the sense that the very act of observation disturbs the state of the quantum system which is being subjected for measurement and in turn leads to randomness of individual outcomes.

Some scientists aren't happy with such inherent randomness in nature and they have put forward other theories such as multiverse where the other possible outcome is branched out into an another universe, what ever it is none of these interpretations can fully describe the nature of reality.

With local realism already dead we are better to accept the fact that what we call reality is only a state of mind, the moon doesn't really exist when you are not looking at it, this doesn't mean idealism but a form of open realism, mind and the external world is responsible for the retrospective creation of empirical reality.

One man is adamant that the universe is working in a completely different way and asserts that quantum mechanics and string theory is incomplete and he is Sir Roger Penrose.

There are statements in mathematics which are true but no algorithm exists within the axiomatic systems which can prove that these statements are true. If we know that these statements are true then our mind is not a computational Turing machine, our mind is non-computational, does this mean that we directly access mathematical truths directly from a platonic realm?

Read Foreword to Computable Universe by Roger Penrose for his full fledged argument and how he defends his views on quantum mechanics.

Scientific research indeed encourage esotericism and it can turn an atheist into an esotericist. This is what contemporary science is saying, a truth which many scientists are yet to swallow.