Ambrose
Your argument then, is actually with scientists that have overstepped their scientific boundaries and have been preaching abiogenesis like some sort of new religion. That is a valid complaint. But how are they to be reined in? They must be shown that they have overstepped their boundaries.
Yes, there must be a kind of scientific mysticism about abiogenesis if it cannot be explained scientifically to have happened by pure chance. But people like Dawkins go further to assume that chance is the default position to take regarding abiogenesis. Why? The only reason can be that it (chance abiogenesis) supports the atheist presumption that the universe is purposeless and undirected.
The question you raise is not an easy one to answer. I don’t know how you get into an atheist’s head and help him to see that it is atheism governing his science at the same time he complains that it is religion governing Intelligent Design. If I was talking to an atheist up close and personal, the main point I would want to make is to ask him if he sees intelligent design anywhere in the universe. If he doesn’t, he is a hopeless case, because he is denying even the intelligent design I use in my sentences, or he uses in his, when we are talking to each other. Since, then, intelligent design of a particular kind clearly exists, the atheist has a model from which to construct a more general idea of intelligent design wherever order is seen anywhere in the history of the universe.
The mathematicians and astronomers are in some ways more design oriented than the biologists. Starting at the beginning of the universe, they look for, and find, that the first elements and laws of creation (the Big Bang) were conducive to the eventual appearance of life somewhere in the universe. If the conditions of the Big Bang were only slightly different than they were, life would not have been possible.
This is the same tack I would take with atheists. If the conditions of planet Earth were only slightly different than they were, life would have been impossible. If there had been no water, or if our distance was just slightly closer to or farther away from the sun, or if there was no adequate gravity to support life, or if all the 25 elements that compose living matter were not present in abundance, or if the actual coming together of those elements to create the first living organisms (irreducibly complex to boot) was not believable as an accident of nature, or if you take these and a thousand other observable conditions necessary for life and total them up, then I would say that science is not on the side of pure chance. It begins to look more and more as though the planet is a laboratory, an experiment designed by some intelligence far greater than our own.
But this is approaching a philosophy of science that the atheist cannot abide. I think this is not because it is intellectually unacceptable, but because atheism is rooted in the emotions rather than in the intellect, so I’m not sure how far we get with atheists by trying to point out signs of intelligence behind the universe, the signs that Newton and Einstein took to be clearly visible. Antony Flew is a classic case of the atheist who follows the evidence where it leads … in Flew’s case to God. But I have not in my experience found many atheists who are equally open to a point of view most of them have passionately held since they were teenagers. In that sense, as you suggest, there is a new mysticism, a new religion called Atheism.
This new religion tries to belittle God by denying that God exists … and forbids that anyone should even deduce their way to God by any scientific discovery that challenges the idea of a purposeless universe.
MIght as well say all Sacred Music should be outlawed because it proves nothing about God, yet proves that people are fools for singing it.
You have no idea what I was talking about, your answers only prove that beyond any doubt. I have no wish to address your current questions, as they have nothing to do with this thread, or my post. 
