Darwin’s warm pond
The general late 20th century early 21st century "conception" of Darwin’s warm pond, a conjunction of Darwin's 1871 conjecture about life arising from non-life, or organic arising from inorganic, in a lit, electrified, warm pond, filled with ammonia and phosphoric salts, plus Alexander Oparin's 1936 conjecture that an early reducing atmosphere allowed for the formation of a sea of organic droplets, aka primordial soup, plus Stanley Miller's 1952 electrical amino acid synthesis experiment (see: Miller-Urey experiment), plus Francis Crick and James Watson's 1953 discovery of the structure the gene as DNA made of stands of RNA made of nucleotides.
In terminology, Darwin’s warm pond, aka “warm pond model”, or “Darwin’s warm little pond’, refers to []

Overview
The following synopsis quotes give well-rounded conception of how modern scientists tend to conceptualized Darwin's warm pond, in modern terms:

“Indeed, scores of organic compounds have been identified in Miller-type experiments, including almost all common amino acids, the purine and pyrimidine bases of DNA and RNA, many types of hydrocarbons and fatty acids, and more than forty different sugars. Some protocols are more efficient than others, some more plausibly prebiotic, but all give biologiclike products if free oxygen is shut out of the system. The conclusion is inescapable—monomers of CHON are easy to make under simulated early-earth conditions. But because the amounts produced would have been limited by the scarceness of hydrogen gas in the early atmosphere, organics formed this way were probably not plentiful and may have been augmented by other sources. Evidently Darwin’s warm pond and Oparin’s primordial soup were close to the mark, though the soup may have been more a dilute consommé than a thick organic broth.”
— William Schoph (2001), Cradle of Life [1]

“One can only speculate whether twentieth century chemists were inspired by Darwin’s warm pond scenario when they set out to discuss and explore the chemical evolution of life in laboratory flasks (Oparin 1936; Urey 1952; Miller 1953, 1955). The letter to Hooker is quoted by Oparin, Hardin (1950), and Calvin (1969); but as far as we could ascertain, it was not mentioned in the early experimental contributions from other authors.”
— Hartmut Follmann et al (2009), “Darwin’s Warm Pond Revisited”

(add discussion)

Religion | Conflict
The direct religious implications of the Darwin warm pond model, i.e. that life arose from non-living chemicals, via the action of heat, electricity, and light, seemingly remove "god", and concordant "god baggage" theories, e.g. spirit, soul, afterlife, morality, meaning, etc., from the picture. This, naturally enough irks, creationists, and the related; some of which are is captured in the following example quotes:

Darwin suggested that the first living creature evolved in a warm little pond. Some recent writers have imagined that life arose in ‘organic soup’ [see: primordial soup]— a more sophisticated, but equally vague, version of Darwin's warm pond.”
— Walter Brown (1989), In the Beginning (pg. 10)
Life (created from nothing cartoon) (labeled)
A 2013 “life created from nothing” cartoon (Ѻ), ridiculing scientists for believing that “life” can come from “dead” chemicals, aka the nutshell synopsis of Darwin's warm pond model origin of life, by Don Batten of Creation.com.

Beadle’s 1962 view that it is ‘awe-inspiring to conceive of a universe created of hydrogen with the capacity to evolve into man’, framed within Crick’s 1966 view that ‘ultimate aim of the modern movement in biology is in fact to explain all biology in terms of physics and chemistry’, according to which ‘hydrogen is turned into thinking and purposive beings’ is scientifically undemonstrated, and philosophically devoid of merit. Thinking about atoms discussing morals is absurd.”
Ravi Zacharias (1990), The Real Face of Atheism (pgs. 44 + 128)

“The evolutionist wants to assert that [life] arose from inorganic material — from the original chemicals in Darwin's ‘warm pond’. The only explanation scientists have is the assumption that the laws of chemistry and physics must have been different when the earth was formed.”
— Erwin Lutzer (1993), Twelve Myths Americans Believe (pg. 35)

(add discussion)

References
1. (a) Schoph, William. (2001). Cradle of Life: the Discovery of Earth’s Earliest Fossils (pg. 131). Publisher.
(b) J. William Schopf – Wikipedia.
2. Zacharias, Ravi. (1990). The Real Face of Atheism (hydrogen, pg. 44; absurd, 3+ pgs). Baker Books, 2004.

Further reading
● Thims, Libb. (2007). Human Chemistry (Volume One) (pdf) (Darwin’s warm pond, pg. 126). Morrisville, NC: LuLu.
● Follmann, Hartmut. and Brownson, Carol. (2009). “Darwin’s Warm Little Pond Revisited: From Molecules to the Origin of Life” (pdf), In: Beyond the Origin: Charles Darwin and Modern Biology (editor: U. Kutschera). Publisher.

TDics icon ns