Thus, even though a proper scientific investigation (such as using mathematics, chemistry, and the above scientific method) can essentially falsify abiogenesis, proponets of the "philosophical tenet" of "methodological naturalism" will still refuse accept such a falsification, but instead cling to abiogenesis due to a "naturalistic" philosophy of origins.
This is the boat that ID is in right now. They have been incapable of showing how math, chemistry, and the above scientific method have ruled out abiogenesis. All they do is construct a ludicrous scenario and then go on to beat up their self made strawman. For example, one of the more infamous straw men was the claim that a simple bacteria represented a life form made wholly through abiogenesis. What they failed to realize is that bacteria have been evolving for billions of years.
Abiogenesis is a fledgling science that is just starting to make strides. For mathematical models to be applied we need to know the following things:
1. What is the simplest replicator possible?
2. What conditions are required for abiogenesis, no matter the size of the first replicator?
3. What are all of the possible genetic materials? Could silicon based life occur?
Until these answers are known no one can attach any probabilities to abiogenesis. ID supporters claim that abiogenesis is impossible, but their claim is based entirely on misunderstandings, or so it would seem.
In fact I have had evolutionists state that even if evolution were somehow falsifified that they still will not accept special creation as scientifically valid(due to their belief that science requires in "methodological naturalism").
Yes, because special creation does not have any positive evidence in its favor. From what I have seen, special creation requires the falsification of every possible naturalistic explanation, both known explanations and ones that could be discovered in the future. Science continues to use MN for one reason, it's track record. Time after time, phenomena attributed to deities have been found to be due to naturalistic mechanisms. When someone asks "Is this due to a god or to an unknown natural mechanism" the answer has almost always been "a previously unknown natural mechanism".
One evolutionist here even seriously proposed basically a "naturalistic" version of "Last Tuesdayism" as a prefered alternative to creation in the event of falsification of evolution!
You have my permission to ridicule him.