If there was evidence for abiogenesis, that says a natural process is what happened then this debate wouldn't matter, but as you say, if we can't see what happens at the time then why assume only a naturalistic position? Surely you hold a possibility in your own mind if this cannot be solved by science?
It is easy to mix up individuals views with what the appropriate general position
should be. Some of us atheists are willing to make the jump to "no god" from the "no god
so far" state. This is based on our
personal view that not only is methodological naturalism a good way to answer questions (which is science) but also our view that there isn't anything
but the natural (which isn't science it is just our personal view).
When you hear some of us talking (and Dawkin's is a better stong example) you can be excused for mixing what is a general approach and what is personal.
To bring this back to the topic:
While abiogenesis is mostly unanswered anyone may say God had a direct, specific hand in it. However many believers would suggest that this is a misunderstanding of how God works with things. They suggest either he has a hand in everything in some God-like way or He chooses to allow the universe to unfold before him after starting it.
To keep putting God
only into cases of occasional miracles runs the risk of leaving no room for God when each of the cases is explained.
Abiogenesis is one such place. Creationists may be safe in that it might be hard to pin point the precise path from non life to life but they may be at risk when you consider what we have explained so far.
It was only about 7 decades ago the one man was able to say he understood how the sun shines and no one else did. Go back a century or three and the idea that we could understand such things would have seemed as unlikely as we now might think understanding abiogenesis in precise detail is.
Creationists certainly have their credibility at risk (as if there is much left) since the whole probablility arguement and many others will collapse as we get to understand one or more viable
possilbe paths from non-life to life.
They will, of course, then fall back on the "OH YEA! Sez who? You weren't there!" argument. Which works for some people but is so clearly silly to many it will just force more marginalization.