Have you done any abiogenesis research? I haven't watched the video either, probably for similar reasons to yours. But I'll guess that he basically presents a whole collection of still-open questions that any plausible account of the origins of life will need to be able to answer. If that's what he's doing, then it's probably a valuable service in the wider cultural discourse. It doesn't advance a creationist conclusion, that's true. But it does serve to communicate that abiogenesis research is much farther from explaining the origin of life than laypeople are often given to believe. I still think that the most intellectually respectable position to take in these matters is agnostic: We Just Don't Know. Maybe we will in the future, or maybe we won't. I kind of suspect the latter, given that time-travel seems unlikely so we will never be able to go back and observe what actually did happen. (If we did, we would probably contaminate things and throw history off entirely with a giant grandfather paradox.) So the best that science is likely to ever be able to do is generate plausible hypotheses. The problem is that multiple plausible hypotheses are probably possible. Life might have originated in any number of different ways. Different steps in different orders. We will likely never know which one is the true account. I'm certainly inclined to favor naturalistic accounts of life's origins, but that's because of my preexisting methodological and metaphysical naturalism assumptions. But again, it isn't something that I actually know. It's kind of baked in at the beginning, not unlike the creationists own assumptions.