There's a difference between cannot happen in nature and do not happen in nature
Science is looking for how life started on earth. One of the steps it can resonably take is to see if they can create it using any method at all. That woud show that life can be started using the building blocks to be found in our natural world.
The next step would be to show how life started using the conditions found on earth at the time we believe it did start. Creating the conditions to match a natural system producing simple replicating molecules is not being an intelligent designer of life.
And it's as far as it could be from being a designer of elephants, roses and people.
Of course, finding that it is possible for life to develop spontaneously from the chemistry pre-existing on our planet does not answer the question of where that chemistry came from in the first place, but it does push the problem even further back. And 'big' physics is beginning to develop some interesting ideas of how such stuff occurs.
Your mythology is no longer useful.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.