I disagree at philosophical level.
Sorry to pick nits but it is important, I support your general conclusion.
That an experiment repeats precisely does not make the existence of the underlying phenomenon a fact, since the phenomenon tested by the experiment is generally an artefact of the scientific model not the underlying universe.
The problem is our observation of our universe is limited to concepts in our sensor space, and by way of simple example in a sphere in a 3D world is seen only as a circle in 2d like a TV picture.
The circle is a projection so in a complex world all our measurements are of the limited projection, in our observation world, not the underlying object. Eg A bat has a wholly different model of the world.
This matters. Is an electron real? Or is it a model of what we see? Is aparticle or wave just a model? Do either exist outside our heads? Indeed do any of them exist before observation? Copenhagen says no.
Hawking got there in the end - when he recognised there is no unique model with his concept of Model dependent reality.
The starkest simple example of this is persistent misquoting of ohms law in almost every book. The usually quotated equation, is just a definition of resistance. It is not a law. Ohms law is the far less defined statement that resistance is roughly constant for some materials over a range of operating points. I can show you many materials that don't behave according to ohms law.
Not such a defined universe then. Just an observation model.
Nor are the hole/ electron charge transport models fundamental - they too are a model.
So the way atheists use the word "fact" to describe just a repetition of behaviour, is totally misleading since it has little to say about what the universe is... only what it usually does in as far as we perceive it.
Dawkins doesn't even seem to know what a hypothesis is.
As you rightly say -random appearance of the first cell - abiogenesis is pure conjecture. It doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. It cannot be repeated and does not repeat. There is no mechanism for it. No experiment can be contrived to validate it, So it is not even a hypothesis Yet I see it called a theory by illinformed atheists all the time. It is not a theory , it is the name of a gaping hole in a conjectured paradigm of life as a chemical accident,
These people who put blind faith in science would not believe how strange some of the paradoxes they have to confront! Is the moon real before you observe it? Fortunately the paradoxes are a n illusion born of the fact science does not describe the underlying universe, just a model of how it normally behaves.
So speaks a now rested ex postgrad professional physicist, one time involved in both cosmological and electronic physics, and a company involved in genetics...