The original post speaks for itself, that it was about how scientific discoveries impact belief in God.
If you don't perceive a naturalistic solution to the origin of life as a challenge to theism, then why frame the discussion in terms of how theists may "respond" to this new information?
My point is that some theists will "respond" by pointing out that scientific discoveries do not tell us about the nature or existence of God. And that, remarkable as the human mind and science are, there may be things about the universe and reality that it is not able to pin down once and for all in human categories.
I fully understand that this response does not fall neatly into the clever trap you believe you set for creationists or theists by raising this issue. It is a response to the point you made that underlines the dubious assumptions involved in the question you posed.