“Instead, science is really only about one large idea: finding natural explanations for natural processes....there is no “law” of abiogenesis and not even a strong theory, but only some weakly confirmed hypotheses, a little firmer than wild speculations, but not that much.”
And yet, abiogenesis is accepted as essentially a fact - is it not. No? What other “natural” theory is seriously being considered out there?
So then, if abiogenesis - a wildly improbable theory - is accepted over the more probable answer - that a Creator was involved, how is this “acceptance” of abiogenesis different than faith?
“So faith, belief & even truth have nothing to do with it.”
Unless there is an agenda in play.
No, strictly speaking, abiogenesis is neither fact, theory nor scientific law, but is rather a very general term covering a large number of discrete unconfirmed hypotheses.
For a discussion & listing of various origin models, see here.
jonno: "So then, if abiogenesis - a wildly improbable theory - is accepted over the more probable answer - that a Creator was involved, how is this “acceptance” of abiogenesis different than faith?"
Nothing in the term "abiogenesis" excludes the Hand of our Creator at any or every step, if that was His plan.
But I am not in the least offended by the idea that God may have designed the Universe so that it would create life by its own natural processes, without needing His direct supernatural intervention.
I'm OK with it either way.
Are you?
jonno: "Unless there is an agenda in play."
I think we must distinguish between natural-science, strictly defined, and the misuse of science by politicians with their own non-scientific goals in mind.