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?
Unfortunately you're going to be waiting a bit longer. I've been banned from the computer today by She Who Must Be Obeyed so that I can do some "useful work" reducing the entropy in our local habitat.
I'm not sure if you ever got an answer to this from anyone else. It's a very good question, I think. But it's also a bit misleading in that I never said that it was. This thread is about the article by Sewell, and I think he makes the argument himself better than I could.
My point on this thread was to refute those idiots who blather on about antievolutionists supposedly not understanding SLoT or accusing anyone who claims there is a SLoT challenge to Naturalism is an idiot. Just look at the literature out there and you'll see that the whole question of how the SLoT applies to the biological world is a matter of serious ongoing investigation.
My argument is NOT that "SLoT proves evolution is false" but rather that "People who claim that there is not and never has been a SLoT challenge to Naturalism worthy of serious study by highly qualified scientists are either ignorant of scientific history or bald faced liars".
So all your side would need to do to kill this whole thread is to say: "You know what; you guys raise an interesting challenge, but I think it's been met with the following response....". But because you are all ideological fanatics, not objective scientists, you just can't seem to bring yourselves to say that.
Which takes me to my more basic argument which is NOT that evolution is false, but that evolution is primarily perpetuated as a presuppositional ideology, not as an evidentiary scientific discipline.