With all due respect, @Eddie, I am much more familiar with the OOL literature than you. The fact that you cling to assertions and ideas that ignore the fundamental nature of life - today and at the beginnings of life - tells me that 'tis you who are ignoring things.
Getting back to the matter of Tour’s ill-conceived assertions in this regard - in ignoring that RNA even exists, Tour misses out on the identity of the central player, the key onto which any and all OOL scenarios must converge. No matter how one may spin things, the identification of the central feature of life (an accomplishment that is firmly grounded in the RNA World hypothesis) constitutes a huge achievement, one that puts the lie to Tour’s claims about the supposed futility of OOL research.
For the ID community, I believe their perverse denial of all this has caused them to miss an interesting opportunity. One can summarize the molecular biology research program of the DI pretty simply - biochemical function, in general, is so rare in sequence space that it cannot “evolve”. Even before Behe’s first book, we knew that this is wrong, and we know so with more certainty today.
However, what is not known is whether there may be a magic bullet, as it were, a single function that in fact fits this bill. The problem is, how does one identify this, and then study it to confirm some design-related hypotheses? Well, a good place to look for such an entity would be at the origins of life. The RNA World hypothesis has taken us there. We already know one possible subject of study. But, because the ID community is divorced from science, and can only dig in their heels when faced with the abundance of evidence that tells us that the first ID models are wrong, they are unable to move on, to follow new leads and directions, to, as it were, go where the evidence leads.