I get all that. However, it is possible that only observing the physical world, and present physical laws, cannot get at the answers to some questions. Maybe everything can be explained by simply observing (and theorizing about) the physical universe. But then again, maybe it can’t.
This is where logic becomes more powerful than mere science. If the origin of life involves supernatural actions, especially supernatural actions that were not constrained by current laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, and that happened only once, then science is utterly powerless to offer a coherent opinion on it. And if that is so, then continuing to expect science to provide the answer is rank foolishness, and is analogous to looking under the streetlight outside for your lost keys, when you know for sure you lost them in the house, because “the light is better out there.” If life arose because of actions taken by a designer (God) who is not constrained by time, space, and physical laws, then materialistic science that refuses to consider anything beyond the physical will ALWAYS reach the wrong conclusion.
And it is certainly foolish and arrogant for “scientists” to dismiss out of hand those who propose a supernatural origin for life, simply because science can’t observe the supernatural. Again, basic logic. Just because you can’t see something doesn’t mean it’s not there (nor, of course, does it mean it is there either). That is why we have to weigh the evidence, both physical and circumstantial, to evaluate the question.
It is neither foolish nor arrogant. A supernatural origin is OF NO USE TO SCIENCE.
It cannot be tested, modeled, applied, falsified, put to repeated rigor nor meet ANY of the rest of what makes science science.
Like so many, you do not understand what science is and its purpose and utility.
You have made a classification error: you speak of philisophy, not science.