It's true that none of us were there to witness the beginnings of life, but that doesn't mean we can't study and understand it. We weren't there to see dinosaurs roam the earth either, yet we have a pretty good understanding of their existence and behavior thanks to fossils and other geological evidence. Similarly, the theory of abiogenesis (life arising naturally from non-living matter) is supported by a myriad of scientific experiments and observations.

As for the laws of logic, they're not physical entities that exist or were created in the world; they're principles derived from our observations of consistent patterns in the universe. They're a reflection of how our minds understand and interpret the world. Just like mathematical principles, they don't physically exist but are tools we use to make sense of our experiences.

I understand your point about the potential for interpretation of evidence, but in science, evidence isn't just subjectively interpreted. It's used to form hypotheses that can be tested and, if the results are consistent, they form theories. This process is always open to new evidence and reinterpretation. As for logical contradictions, could you give an example of one within the scientific worldview?

I'm curious about your perspective on the origin of the laws of logic in your worldview. How do you reconcile their immaterial nature with the existence of a physical universe?