Can chance account for the origin of life? No.
Why not? You just state the answer is no, without giving any reasons. Are we simply supposed to take your word for it?
Can some type of chemical attraction account for the origin of life? No
Again, why not? Why just the blatant answer "no" with no reasoning to back it up?
Is it possible that natural selection played a role in the origin of life? No
You need to support statements like this. It takes more than just you saying that something is not possible or that it could not have accounted for something else.
In this specific case, you are correct, but it is because natural selection pretty much requires an existing biosphere. Before the origin of life, Earth could have had no biosphere and thus no natural selection was realistically possible.
Is it possible that there is perhaps a natural law or a natural phenomenon that we just haven’t discovered yet? Not likely. Natural laws are usually discovered AFTER a thought experiment is conceived and not as the unexpected result of experimentation….and, at present, there are no suspected natural laws that may help to explain a naturalistic origin of life.
This disregards the fact that we already know that biological organisms are governed by chemical reactions. Indeed, life would not be possible without those chemical reactions. Therefore, we already know of a natural phenomenon that can account for the origin of life, chemical reactions, and this whole point is moot. Or perhaps you meant "chemical reactions" above, instead of chemical attractions? Regardless, your declaration that it is not possible says nothing because you do not support it at all.
The options for a naturalistic origin are virtually non-existent at this point and instead of the scientific community coming together to examine the design inference, we find instead that intelligent design is ostracized because of a dogmatic ‘methodological naturalism’ born out of some poorly conceived demarcation in an attempt to support a worldview rather than embrace the inquisitive and exploratory nature of science.
The only thing "virtually non-existent" right now is your reasoning to justify excluding chance and chemical reactions from being involved with the origins of life, and thus claiming that "intelligent design" is the only possible explanation left. However, intelligent design as an explanation for the origins of life is lethally flawed. If the intelligent designer was a biological organism, then it must have come about by some means, except that you have arbitrarily disallowed the only means we know of to explain it and are violating Occam's razor on top of that (since you are unnecessarily increasing the complexity of the explanation for no good reason). So the only option left is a non-biological organism of some kind. Yet we've never found evidence of any non-biological organisms to begin with. Without that evidence, there's no good reason to infer a non-biological designer of any kind. Furthermore, we have found no solid evidence of design in any biological organism.
Therefore, intelligent design cannot adequately explain the origins of life on Earth as it stands. As you have clearly demonstrated here, it is based on pure inference, that a designer must have existed because the natural means for how life could have originated were arbitrarily excluded from consideration. And that does not fly.
Despite the fact that IDT makes use of the scientific method, we have the non-theist community (both scientists and non-scientists) creating ad hoc rules and criteria in an attempt to keep the ID kids from getting to play in the ToE’s backyard because the ToE kids don’t want their worldview coming under attack.
The scientific method requires experimentation in order to back up a hypothesis. Where are all the experiments that were done to establish that intelligent design has validity? If you cannot point to any, claiming that it makes use of the scientific method is simply wrong.
Fortunately, IDT has already established enough evidence to demonstrate that an “intelligence” is a plausible cause for the origin of life. Many see that, others continue to reject it. IDT is really not that difficult to understand once you digest all of the definitions, the purpose, and the nature of the research. Arguing that it is "creationism in disguise" is a straw man. The merits of any theory should always be based on the validity of the evidence it produces.
What evidence? Don't just tell us that it's established enough evidence - you have to give examples of it. Simply making a claim and not backing it up does not fly. Furthermore, it takes more than simply showing that something is plausible. It takes evidence showing that it actually happened.
And, incidentally, intelligent design actually is creationism dressed up in a lab coat. Despite your attempt to dismiss it as a straw man (which you did not support, like everything else in this post), the fact of the matter is that you have provided no actual evidence to support the existence of any designer, and due to your beliefs, have effectively ruled out the possibility of providing evidence because the designer you believe in is supernatural and thus not part of nature. And virtually all of the major supporters of intelligent design are Christians who consistently state that their god is the designer. It is reasonable to conclude that intelligent design is simply a secularized variation on creationism, a way to try to make it seem scientific enough to bypass skepticism.
Setting aside the argument about whether it has any scientific validity, ask yourself this: Do the complex biological stuctures we observe support the design inference made by IDT? Do the structures contain the type of information we always associate with an intelligent source? Is it possible that science may never discover the pathways necessary for the construction of the complex structures?
Answering yes to any or all of these questions does not mean that you have crossed over from non-theism to theism. It simply means you understand what IDT means and why it offers another plausible view of how we got here.
What you totally fail to understand is that the answer to all three of your questions is "it's possible". There is no reason to conclude that the inference of design represents actual design; it's possible but the likelihood cannot even be evaluated without substantiating evidence. There is no reason to conclude that because someone draws an association between biological information and intelligence, that an intelligence was actually responsible for creating that biological information; again, the likelihood cannot be evaluated without substantiating evidence. And finally, while it certainly is possible that we may never discover how biological structures came about, there is no reason to conclude that we will not because we've only barely started looking. Indeed, if we never discover any evidence to help explain how biological structures came about, then all it actually means is that we didn't find the evidence. Trying to draw a firm conclusion without evidence is effectively impossible.
But all this begs the question of why you're trying to lay the groundwork for treating intelligent design as a scientific theory despite not having any supporting evidence, even though scientific theories require evidence (and lots of it). If you're going to try to treat intelligent design as a scientific theory, then it must be held to the same standard as every other scientific theory, and that means supporting it with solid evidence.