OK, we're dangerously close to chasing our rhetorical tail here... If you follow the (sub)thread, Coyote was willing to allow "Goddidit(TM)" as an explanation for abiogenesis, because as you and he and who knows who else who all read the same pamphlet from the American Humanist Association all said, you guys don't care what the theory of the origin of life is. It doesn't matter. But now it sounds like it does (as I claimed you would). I'm so confused...
I personally think a naturalistic explanation will be found for biogenesis. This is just speculation on my part, but it is based on the history of science. Hard problems sometimes take centuries to solve, but science is patient. I have seen nothing to suggest that any observable phenomenon can't have a naturalistic explanation.
What I find unexplainable is people who argue that we shouldn't look for naturalistic explanations.
By the way I'm still waiting. Explain how evolution is thermodynamically different from metabolism, growth, development, learning, photosynthesis. What specific chemical process involved in evolution violates thermodynamics?