Intriguing -- what progress can you cite in this regard? The question of the origin of life itself has always seemed to me the most powerful argument in favor of the existence of God. Full-blown creationists seem ridiculous when they deny the evidence of the fossil record. But those insistent on denying the existence of an "unmoved mover" seem totally at a loss to explain how one goes from a primordial soup of inorganic chemicals to, presto chango, the first primitive life form. Saying that if chemicals percolate together long enough life will result seems like saying -- to cite an image I heard once -- if you spend enough time spilling ink on a page you'll eventually write the works of Shakespeare. I don't see how God and evolution stand as warring alternatives; based on the evidence, to me they seem logical complements.
Carl