But papers on abiogenesis get accepted for publication.
Without some specific paper in mind, it's difficult for me to judge the propriety of such things. Generally speaking, however, IMO I have no problem with papers that investigate poorly understood or unknown phenomenon which may have implications for abiogenesis. E.g., "we have discovered this novel chemical process - perhaps this has some relevance to abiogenesis". If, on the other hand, there is nothing new to report, and the thesis of the paper essentially boils down to "maybe it was elves", then it probably shouldn't be considered "research", per se.
The real problem is, whether the proposed mechanism is naturalistic, such as the various chemical mechanisms proposed, or non-naturalistic, such as an ID mechanism, there's no clear idea as to what evidence for such a proposal might look like, or where we might find it. So we have several competing possibilities, none of which have any real historical evidence either for or against them. I may have a personal preference for one or the other theory, but it's difficult to avoid admitting that it's based purely on my personal preference, with no real rational reason for accepting it or rejecting another theory.
At this point, the thesis that God personally seeded the oceans with primitive life is at least as plausible as any other theory of biogenesis, be it Urey and Miller's lightning bolt, clay substrates, or whatever. From the standpoint of science, none of those theses is really falsifiable, so none of them are particularly superior to the others. People with a naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from non-naturalistic explanations, just as people with a non-naturalistic bent will probably tend to gravitate away from naturalistic explanations, but either way, one is simply assuming that the reality of the universe happens to jibe with your own personal philosophy, and assuming such without any real factual basis for doing so.
The truth is, while plausible mechanisms for how life first came into being will probably continue to be proposed, the truth of how life actually did come into being will likely remain unknown for the foreseeable future, perhaps forever. Not to say that we should stop looking, of course, but I have my doubts that any theory of biogenesis will ever become so overwhelmingly compelling that rational people will be unable to avoid accepting it.
Perhaps the only thing that might really carry any weight is if Starfleet gets out there and is able to observe biogenetic processes in progress on other planets. That, in and of itself, wouldn't constitute proof of how life came about on earth, but if we were able to observe the same mechanism operating repeatedly on many planets, with little or no exception, it would eventually come to resemble a rational argument to suggest that the same mechanism was responsible for life on earth. Alas, I think that you and I will probably end up shuffling off this mortal coil without ever having access to such data ;)