Urey supports Spontaneous Generations

So, is this at present really support for the religious community which asserts that some unnatural forces created Life or is there evidence which science can use to show a more natural Cause an Effect relationship here?

The point here concerns scripture which many atheists and bible basher discredit on the basis that Genesis conflicts with what Science has established as fact.
In this case, what Science HAS established in that there is no other explanation for the rather unique and uncanny appearance of life on earth.
This also defies the reasoning that life might exist on other planets because we essentially do not know how Life appeared here, on ear5h.The Hypothesis that Life could or ought naturally appear is unfounded upon any evidence to that belief.
The science community in fact is in the sad position of merely insisting they have faith that some natural process could have and might well in other places produce life.Though scientists would frown upon Religious organizations that preached with such certainty, they scan the skies and report on earth-like planets that might be circling other suns, speculating and reporting through the media that life exists there, de facto that they are similar to Earth.This hypocrisy is only mentioned because faith in beliefs are so easily ridiculed by these scientist types when it concerns the discipline of Theology.It seems tome more scientifically honest to tell the public that, just finding earth-like planets elsewhere does NOT assure us that life exists elsewhere, too.I would go so far as to accuse Science today of actually teaching this fallacy to the point that it has become common and generally assumed that Life MUST and DOES exist elsewhere, simply because mathematically, the possibility of earth-like planets existing is high.Science in this case is worse than religion because it disrespects the same behavior it practices.

There is certainly evidence for Cause and Effect Theory.That is the basis for this necessary and required Axiom of Science.
It's the basic Hypothesis which Science has ever since sought to support with more and more examples of a Cause/Effect relationship for everything.It is essentially the philosophy of Science itself, and the very work of science to continue ti find the Causes to things previously assumed to be super natural.It is the basic Tenet of Science, in fact.However, Science has had to postulate that Cause/Effect does not include a First Cause.At least that one Postulate is required before Science even begin to find one example after another to debunk what otherwise would be magic.Every discipline known to man requires that some basic tenet be accepted upon faith in the common sense of it, or that discipline can not even proceed on its face.Geometry requires eight foundational Axioms before any geometric "proof" of anything is possible/Mathematics requires that one accept on faith the 12 Field Postulates.And Science requires at least we ignore a First Cause, one which is, De facto, The Creator of the material universe.Evolution requires we begin only after we accept a Natural Process can be assumed for the very first of the Life which Evolution will explain thereafter.