Sounds like religion to me. Consider the number of times this article has the words "may be", "might have" or "could" in it( 7 ). But if one happens to 'believe' differently than this esteemed Doctor, they'd be considered an ignorant, backward fundamentalist.
The early history of life is still an area of research where there's a great deal of uncertainty. In such a situation, it's reasonable that there be a plethora of competing, speculative hypotheses. The difference between this and religion is that religion seldom admits uncertainty that might be resolved later by human inquiry. It either dictates the truth, or it claims the truth is some mystery beyond human understanding.
I personally don't believe this hypothesis. I am most certainly not a fundamentalist.