Researchers supplying the nucleotides is simply an effective way to speed up the process of nucleotides landing there by chance. It doesn't mean that there was necessarily someone who had to place the RNA and DNA nucleotides there in nature. Though this may be a possibility, one also has to think of the favouritism involved in this idea. Why should the the universe, God, or whoever else the designer may be, specify this place among others in our immediate galaxy? This is not to say that there may not be life elsewhere, but merely to state that why here specifically? The universe is so vast and contains so many possibilities of placement, the very fact that life is here becomes more of a probability than a decision. Life (if it were placed) just so happened to be placed as we know it. And ultimately everything keys back to chance. The potential for life is on earth by chance, from that DNA and RNA developed by chance, from that life developed by chance. One could say that these events in order are a very very minuscule chance as well, but we too are very very minuscule in terms of the entire universe. Is it not fitting that a smaller section has a greater ability of expressing a more difficult probability?
As for your statement about arrogance: If one claims another is arrogant, that assumes that one knows of someone in the universe who is not arrogant. Otherwise, how would anyone know what arrogance is? Yes, scientists may be arrogant at times, but they are no more sure of the universe in its purest essence than any creationist thinker is. Thus, creationism shows just as much arrogance as science. Then I suppose the only difference would be contemporary pragmatism. Creationism may have been pragmatic during the time it was conceived, but things have changed since then. Humanity has changed and with it, our sense of pragmatism. The fundamental rules of nature are always constant, but we view them differently. I guess what I'm saying is, think of evolution as "neo-creationism" in a sense. It's the theory that fits the times. Who knows, perhaps in the future, creationism will fit our contemporary knowledge. But, from what we "know" currently, evolution is our most logical bet.
And yes, it is abiogenesis, not evolution that is "truly" being discussed, but it doesn't matter what theory one refutes as long as one has a meaningful question. I enjoyed answering this question. Good thinking, but logic takes us a bit farther than simply creationism.