Without actual verifiable evidence we are engaging in conjecture rather than science. Or, to put it another way, any number we assign is pulled right out of our asses and any conclusions drawn from made up percentages aren’t worth a dime.
‘From (a) and (b) it follows’ is a false choice. There is also (c) something else (unknown) and (d) no conclusion can be drawn from the evidence available (unknowable)
Not when you consider that neither theory has actual evidence to support it.
I would say that teaching conjecture is a greater distortion. It also seems to me that “Teaching the controversy” is a label applied to my argument incorrectly and amounts to a straw man due to the present political climate in which religious zealots have decided to teach magic man hooey as “The Controversy” in regards to the origin of life. I’m not sure that applying the moniker of a religious argument to someone proffering an argument calling for rigorous skepticism makes sense.
In my view, teaching that they are tombs is closer to the faith based position than teaching what we actually do know about them which should be done without engaging in conjecture. It occurs to me that the problem may stem from the desire to state what they were for in the first place. There is no need to make a declarative statement regarding the nature of a thing for which the vital nature remains unknown other than to declare that the nature of the thing remains unknown. Or, in other words, teach the truth.
