[Smogger]

While natural scientists maybe are methodological naturalist, most are on ontological naturalists, which is to say that they are aethiest. Regardless, the discussion of the origin of life is inevitable a religious/philisopical discussion since a scientist can no more observe the the beginning of the universe than can a priest.

Origin science is not operational science. You can't observe something that by it's nature will only happen once.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"While natural scientists maybe are methodological naturalist, most are on ontological naturalists, which is to say that they are aethiest."

Not true.

"Regardless, the discussion of the origin of life is inevitable a religious/philisopical discussion since a scientist can no more observe the the beginning of the universe than can a priest."

You just jumped from the origins of life (abiogenesis) to the origins of the universe (The Big Bang Theory), neither of which is covered by the theory of evolution. As for their scientific standing though, indirect evidence can be as good as direct evidence if there is enough. Nobody has seen subatomic particles either.

"Origin science is not operational science. You can't observe something that by it's nature will only happen once."

Yes you can, you can observe it indirectly.