Current hypotheses & models are, well, light-years beyond the 1952 Miller–Urey experiments, and while fascinating cannot be called confirmed theories. So far, any abiogenic origin ideas can still be falsified and panspermia (non-Earth origins) cannot be ruled out.
Not sure what you mean by "light-years beyond" here. My non-expert impression is that there was an expectation a few decades ago that the origin of life was about to be demonstrated--but it was completely dashed and the matter turned out to have intractable difficulties that were not previously anticipated. After this kind of correction by reality, it seems to me a bit premature to presume science is progressing toward showing abiogenisis to be feasible. While as far as I know, it might be, I think it rather fallacious to presume it. How about keeping an open enough mind to the possibility that the meta-physical framework might be different, and perhaps abiogensis is not the explanation of life? I suspect this is uncomfortable for many, but being rational is not always about comfort.
Two books I've read give a summary of recent work & discoveries in this area.
In these books Miller-Urey is mentioned, briefly, but the major reports are on work since then -- very interesting, imho.
Andy Pross: "What is Life? How Chemistry Becomes Biology"
Nick Lane: The Vital Question, Energy, Evolution and the Origins of Complex Life"
