You misunderstand the nature of the argument. It is not meant to be a god-of-the-gaps argument in place of a scientific explanation. Rather, it’s a reflection of the nature of consciousness and how different it seems to be from anything else we’ve encountered in nature. The mystery of origin of life is a comparatively trivial problem compared to the origin of consciousness, and this is something that several non-theistic philosophers have agreed.
The material ingredients that possibly contribute to consciousness (e.g. neurons) could one day have a perfectly coherent scientific explanation without reference to God. But it’s almost inconceivable what kind of mechanistic account of nature could satisfactorily explain consciousness (for example, see the famous China brain argument).
Secondly, your objection can basically be launched at any sort of argument for God. It takes the form of the following:
Theist: Feature X of the universe seems best explainable by the existence of God.
Naturalist: But what if one day a scientific explanation could be found?
In other words, you need to flesh out your objection more coherently than simply saying, “Future science!”
This leads to this comment:
None of these statements are necessarily contrary to the need of a scientific explanation. Many theists would endorse a statement like “God makes the Sun shine brightly”. Such a statement does not exclude the legitimacy of a scientific explanation for the Sun’s shining: “God makes the Sun shine through the process of nuclear fusion of helium into hydrogen.”