Another area that theism wields explanatory power over atheism is the origin of life. Life is not eternal, it had a beginning. At some point something living came from something that was not living. While theism holds that life was created by God (the creator), atheism has struggled to explain the origin of life, how did the first living thing come from non-living material? This question is less avoidable than the origin of the universe, the universe could be eternal, periodically having a big crunch to the point of singularity followed by a big bang, but life could not have survived this. Life definitely had to have come from non-life. Similarly, the question of life from non-life can be pressed further than the miraculously convenient conditions for life, it's theoretically possible that there are (or have been) quadrillions of universes and we just happen to be in one where the constants are tuned to support life. But life still had to have begun at some point in the history universe, how?
At this point, a number of people confuse what is meant be "life"? Scientists have demonstrated how the proteins and amino acids necessary for DNA (the basic building blocks for life) could have come about naturally, and some think that this is enough. In debating with theists, atheists have been known to minimise the step from non-life to life as one small step in the chain from proteins to amino acid to DNA to a single cell to the most basic of bacteria and so on. However, the step from DNA to a single living cell (or a single celled organism) is no small step, and scientists have been trying to reproduce this step for decades with no success. According to the scientific definition, life grows and reproduces, as opposed to non-life (e.g. the building blocks of life) which neither grow nor reproduce. Immediately this poses a problem for philosophical naturalism, for it requires something that doesn't reproduce by definition, to produce something that does. How can non-life give birth to life, when only life is capable of giving birth to anything?
In an attempt to explain the origin of life without a creator, atheists have developed a theory called abiogenesis (a-bio-genesis = non-biological beginning). While this is a theory that assumes the origin of life from non-life, it's often held up as an argument against the theistic claim that God created life. Unfortunately abiogenesis only assumes that life came from non-life, it doesn't explain how life came from non-life. Abiogenesis is not an argument, it's an assumption, and worse, it's an assumption which we have no scientific evidence of. Until someone can create life from non-living material in a test tube, abiogenesis offers no explanatory power for how life began. It fails even to scratch the surface of explaining our observation of life in a universe which appears to have had a beginning without life. Hypotheses are accepted when they can explain our observations (without explaining any away), and rejected when they fail to explain our observations (or have to explain some away). This is simply a case where theism explains our observation of life in universe that didn't always have life, where atheism fails to do so.
At this point atheists often appeal for more time for science to discover how life could have come from non-life without a creator. This is a fair appeal, abiogenesis may have its Darwin who discovers how such a phenomenon could have come about naturally. However, this is precisely the point: an explanation for the origin of life is squarely within the realm of science, the theistic claim of creation scientifically falsifiable. Philosophical arguments for theism are often rejected for not being scientifically falsifiable (as if science were the only way that we can know things), but the theistic argument of the origin of life is one of the most scientifically falsifiable arguments there is. Scientists often prefer claims that are scientifically falsifiable, and here is a scientifically falsifiable claim for theism: the necessary origin of life requires supernatural intervention for life to come from non-life. Unlike the origin of the universe, this doesn't require one to be outside of space and time to observe the cause of space and time. Unlike the theory of the multiverse, this doesn't require one to be outside of our universe in order to observe other universes.
Science has been advancing on almost all possible fronts for decades. Scientific discoveries have increased our understanding of the universe a million fold. Science has enabled our generation to do things previous generations could scarcely imagine, and have insight into things that humanity had considered to be unknowable mysteries for thousands of years. The origin of life is an area that scientists have been trying to understand since the beginning of biology. While some biologists have mapped out the human genome, and others have cured countless diseases and conditions, those who have been working on the origin of life are yet to offer any scientific explanation for it. As a falsifiable claim, it's always possible that the supernatural creation of life will be falsified, but after decades of scientific attempts at asking how life came from non-life, we're still waiting for an answer.
