Exactly. And your continued speculation on the origins of species is based upon an assumption that it was entirely naturalistic and that there was nothing "supernatural" about it. Unfortunatly just because you can attempt to explain how it might have occurred does not mean that that is what happened.
In short we do not know how life originated
Exactly. And your continued speculation on the origins of species is based upon an assumption that it was entirely naturalistic and that there was nothing "supernatural" about it.
Speculations about the origin of species is based on a very great deal of relevant evidence, including the study of actual speciation events, an increasingly detailed knowledge of probable mechanisms (e.g. chromosomal mutations), and so on. We can look at the genetic code of the resultant species, map out their geographical distributions, look at fossils of similar creatures, etc, etc. This is of an entirely different order than the question of the origin of life as such.
The fact that only naturalistic mechanisms are considered is no different in evolutionary biology than in any other field of biology or any other department of science. This is the way science operates. Introducing the element of unrestrained supernatural cause would render a resulting scientific "theory" untestable, and thereby undercut and corrupt basic scientific methods.
That being said, the nature of science is by no means set in stone. Even the most fundamental scientific presuppostions have always been subject to revision, and many have been revised, but only to accomodate successful scientific theory. Before Newton proposed universal gravitation, for instance, it was a well nigh universal assumption of science that force was only tranmitted by actual physical contact or "impact" between particles of matter. Newton's ideas about a force that acted at a distance, without impact, violated a basic scientific assumption and early on was branded as an "occult" theory. Problem was that Newton's theory worked, and ruling scientific presuppositions were therefore abandoned or modified to accomodate it.
This indicates the necessary program for scientific creationists to pursue. It will do no good at all to whine incessesantly about the alledgedly "dogmatic" exclusion of supernatural cause. Such an exclusion is universal to all departments of science (not there just to protect evolution, or to irratate fundamentalists), and is based on sound and well proven pragmatic and philosophical considerations. Scientists are convinced that one simply cannot do supernatural science. The only way to convince them otherwise is to demonstrate that it can in fact be done by devising, devoloping, testing and applying a sucessful creationistic theory. Should creationists succeed at that, the nature of science will inevitably be modified to accomodate the theory. That's the way it always works.
Once again, for emphasis: Genuinely successful and useful scientific theories are never abandoned simply because they violate some standing assumption about what constitutes a good, acceptable or conforming scientific theory. Such assumptions will always be modified to accomodate successful scientific theories. But they will not be modified simply because some particular ideologically or religious modified group declares them "unfair". IOW, put up or shut up.