This belief is required if one rejects the idea of a creator. The odds of a random abiogenesis are so ridiculously high -- pondering this caused Fred Hoyle to accept the existence of an intelligent creator -- that a need for a second one would destroy the faith of even the most strident atheist.
One who believes in God, however, would have no problem accepting a second or third or fourth or whatever is required to explain the variety of life. All the while accepting that natural selection and random mutation also have their roles.
And one who believes in God would have no problem accepting just one abiogenesis instance, if that's how the evidence shakes out.
One can believe in God and also accept the science of chemistry. They are not at all incompatible. Given that the building-blocks of proteins appear in nature, it certainly isn't inconceivable that with sufficient time, and with oceans filled with pre-organic molecules floating around, a self-replicator could eventually get formed. One is enough. After that the fun starts. None of this rules out God, so I wonder why so many religious folk simply won't accept that life could have begun as a natural process.
Absolutely true, and that is why evolution cannot deal with the idea of the archaea, eukaryotes, and prokaryotes not being ancestors or descendants of each other. However, a view that includes a Creator has no such problem.
I often say that science is continually disproving evolution and the discovery of a 3rd kingdom of single celled creatures certainly is another disproof of evolution. Also these archaea are quite interesting. They live in chemical vents where no other life can live usually. Now what is particularly interesting about this is that of course these thermal vents are very far away from each other both on land and sea, these particular creatures are therefore isolated from others like it and not only that they are all quite different and very unlikely for both reasons to have descended from each other.