No, I’m not introducing any sort of vitalism. If you find the statements like “the powers of molecular bonding” or “the powers of protein-folding” potentially misleading, I could easily replace them with different wording: “the capabilities of molecular bonding” or “the potentialities of protein-folding.” The English idioms involving “the power(s) of ____” does not require some sort of personal agency. Thus, we can speak of “the powers of photochemical technologies”, for example.
Thus, you are reading into my words ideas which aren’t there—just as you did when you claimed that Dan Eastwood had stated that science had established that natural processes were inherently insufficient to produce the first living organisms. (He later posted his clarification that he certainly did not make that claim.)
This is a common linguistic confusion brought about by the fact that the English language combines under a single word (“life”) what the Koine Greek of the Bible carefully distinguishes by means of several very different words. See my summary at:
…where I discussed just a few of the various words and distinctions the Bible uses when addressing this topic.
God is not biologically alive—so the BIOS in the word abiogenesis does not regard whether or not God was involved in the non-living materials which came together to form the first living organism. A “linguistic accident” whereby modern English (and not necessarily earlier versions of English) lumped together very different ideas and classifications under a single word: life. Even many people who speak modern languages today would be perplexed by your statement—unless someone explained to them how the underlying semantic domains operate in English.