I am talking about Paley's hypothesis or theory regarding the creation of life.
The natural world indeed has an objective reality independent of its discovery by science. For example, DNA, neutrons, microwaves were part of the natural world five hundred yrs ago, they just hadn't been discovered yet.
So the natural world is empirical. it can be observed by the senses. The behavior of the natural world can be expressed by laws that are consistent through time and space. They are repeatable and consistent from moment to moment and place to place. We can't observe electrons with our eyes directly. Yet we observe them in other ways and they obey regular laws. Electrons are naturalistic entities. Radioactive decay is a natural phenomenon. It is observable, though the exact moment of decay is not predictable but it follows repeatable laws.
Intelligence is more slippery. It seems to defy the natural world. It does not rigidly obey laws, It is not repeatable. We can't observe it with our senses. But we "obwerve" it with our minds. We observe its creations (math formula written on paper) No one has shown it is the result of natural laws operating on molecules and atoms. Is intelligence naturalistic or not?
So for discussion, I view the supernatural as something that fails the definition of the natural world. So can we show the existence of the supernatural without observing it in any way? CXan the supernatural be a legitimate part of science? Can the supernatural have a testable, scientific basis? I say YES
Bully for you. I say if there is anything science can do to detect a supernatural entity, than that part or effect of the entity science can deal with is, de facto, a natural, not a supernatural, phenomenon. The ether was a big part of science for a long, time, but then the ether went away. So, one could argue that the ether is a supernatural phenomenon--there is no scientific validity to its existence because science can't detect it. Does that mean science has proved there is no ether?
Similarly, will the discovery of an obvious natural explanation for abiogensis disprove the existence of God the Prime Mover of life? Scientific theories are provision in nature: they are just convenient approximate maps of reality--they are not real things in a tangible sense. We tend to accept them because they are useful, not because they are in some sense absolutely true or transcendent--or even trying to approach such pinnacles. Just because Einstein's theory is useful, doesn't mean Newton's theory is useless; just because there is an abiogenic explanation for the existence of life, doesn't mean there isn't also a Prime Mover God.