The only naturalistic hypothesis I have seen put forth that is not intelligent design oriented is abiogenesis - the probability of which is astronomical. Laboratory experiments have consistently failed to provide even the slightest evidence for it. In a case such as this a supernatural assumption seems far more reasonable.
Except the creationist view is still abiogenesis, except they start with nothing and invoke magic, at least the scientific hypothesis starts with material ie simple chemical substances and uses natural catalysts, ie: radioactivity, lightning & ultraviolet radiation. as opposed to some sky daddy invoking magic.
There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008