Hahaha.. you walked into this one.

Imagine yet another layer of complexity to life that functions with even more computer-like coordination than what we see now.

"Nay" says the Naturalist. There must be a natural explanation if we keep looking. And on and on.

Not really.

Naturalism is a stance. It doesn't pretend to be an absolutist philosophy.

You are, basically, chastising dance because it is a poor architect, or metallurgy because it makes a poor opera.



But, yes; it could be said that the two stances are equal, if there is no information at all available. If whatever the thing being investigated is, has no possible (much less plausible) mechanism.

Unfortunately this is far from true even for abiogenesis.

And I have to say, again, naturalism can't be blamed for doing its job. Saying "Why doesn't naturalism ever accept that the answer might be supernatural?" is like asking "Why does opera always have to have all that singing?"

You want an opera without singing? Go watch a play. You want an investigative stance that says "Damned if I know how life came to be. Maybe it was a god or something," then go to philosophy, religion, or a state of advanced inebriation.

In any case, since there ARE avenues for research that are clearly open, and that are in ongoing investigation, asking naturalism to turn away and give up is like (to change metaphors again) asking Commissioner Gordon to give up his promising lead, hang up on the witness, and sit back in hopes that Batman will get around to solving the case himself when he gets done saving Gotham City once again.