You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal. Even Sagan, atheist, said we (humans) have a duty to our originator. He, of course, said the cosmos (which he spelled Cosomos) was our originator, and thus, we have inherent obligations to the cosmos. Another atheistic thinker, German Frederich Nietzsche said we have killed God, that God is dead,..how shall we then comfort ourselves? Must we now become gods ourselves. For when God died all absolutes died with Him...no moral lawgiver, no prescribed right or wrong. Or Fyodor Dostoevsky, who said, now that God is dead all things are permitted.
So, as I say, from origins flow ethical ideas which command the day. I will stop there. But if you are interested you might look at the Argument For God from the Argument from Consiousness, The Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontologcical Argument, The Metaphysical Argument, The Argument from Reason, and there are many others.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution. To dismiss it seems convenient and self-serving to the atheist. To foister it off on a nebular 'hypothesis' is to say I will have faith in one of those hypothesis,...but faith is the order of that statement. Then to appleal to that last word of that sentence, 'yet' puts the final stamp of approval of faith in the scientific magestestrate. We have no idea of lifes' ontology or epistemology, but science will bring us through.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system. Yes, we observe it now. We measure its effects now....but ontologically and epistemically how did those systems arise?
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.
You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As a professional scientist, the question of origin is indeed irrelevant to my work. I care about evolutionary relationships between modern living organisms. I care about the evolution of microorganisms into forms that allow them to attack and sometimes kill humans. Does the origin of the universe really have any impact on those questions? None that I can see. If some of those physicists thought the origin of the universe is important--well, scientists of other disciplines have their priorities, which are not necessarily my priorities.
If I am to ponder whether the universe is eternal or not, it is not as a scientist that I ponder such a thing. That kind of question is in the realm of things that I cannot answer through experiment or observation. I really dislike those kinds of questions--one can go crazy trying to reason one's way to an answer, and the answer, being derived through thought and not observation, is always uncertain and subject to change. So, in the interest of maintaining sanity, I stick to the concrete and answerable.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal.
I can only say that I disagree strongly with that statement, as well as the rest of that paragraph. By that, you seem to be implying that--for example--someone who sees the universe as eternal could be horrified by the practice of killing the unborn as a method of birth control, but if they were to decide that the universe has a finite beginning and ending, they would then change their mind and accept the practice without reservation. Or vice-versa. I see absolutely no correlation between someone's ethical views and their view on whether the universe is eternal.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
Indeed. Every single process going on in every single living organism is a blind chemical process proceeding according to immutable physical law. Each one of those processes can be replicated in vitro, that is, outside of a living organism. I've carried out hundreds, maybe thousands, of experiments replicating processes that occur in living organisms. Yet, when all of those processes are combined and operating, there is a living organism. And if I do something to make those organisms non-living, there is nothing I can do to restore them to a living condition. Amazing, isn't it?
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution.
Actually... I don't need to know how the first life came to be, or what form it took. Having that knowledge will not affect phylogenetic tree construction or any other methodology I use to examine evolutionary relationships. For my work, I need to understand the mechanistic drivers of evolution, and I do know that.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system.
Enzymes are proteins. Proteins fold all by themselves into the proper forms. That is a consequence of their chemical nature; they need no direction or guidance, they just fold. Enzymes need only two functions: a substrate binding site, and an active site. Those also are consequences of them being chemicals. An enzyme substrate is, likewise, a chemical. In the presence of energy, chemicals react with each other because that is their nature--it's no big deal. As for the estimate of there needing to be at least 350 enzyme systems for a simple cell (where did that estimate come from, anyway)--the smallest virus known has three genes, one structural and two enzymes. Since the only essential function of a living organism is the replication of the genetic material--I'd say that the first living things wouldn't have needed to be very complicated at all.
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.
Relevant, for what purpose? Maybe for your theology, but not for science. Medical research will continue whether or not we ever find a scientific answer to that question.