OK, so now that we're no longer presuppositionally committed to naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, why do we need to pursue such explanations so dogmatically post-biogenesis?
[Replying to myself like a crazy person...]
In other words, when we see natural phenomena best explained through a naturalistic process, namely evolution, we accept that as the best model, but when we see natural phenomena best explained through divine creation, we accept that as the best model.
Any objection?
Evidence, data, observations, and facts (leading to theories) which support natural phenomena, and the lack thereof for non-natural explanations.
See, it does not matter for the theory of evolution what happened prior to the start (creation, abogenesis), as evolution does not deal with that. I know religious folks have a problem with this explanation, but that's the way the theory is stated, and all your protestations cannot change that.