Who is under any illusions about them? This is ultra basic stuff and you’re making a big deal out of it as if it is being kept a secret. It’s ridicululous.
Instead of assuming MN
What else should they do, assume methodological supernaturalism? How does one do that? What even is that? The method is what, that we assume no sense can be made of the observed, or that it can’t even be observed?
and begging the question in articles to popularize science
Who does that? Where? Point out specific examples. Don’t give me vague handwaving generalizations. Give concrete examples. Links, quotes, with texts and sources.
be upfront and say these are the options currently available to explain the origin of lIfe. Be upfront about the assumptions being made.
But they literally are doing exactly that. Szostak does that in his article. He says some proposals involve RNA first, and even mentions that other researchers disagree. That’s true, and represents a true dichotomy. Either RNA was involved at the beginning or it was not. And there are people who think it was, and others who don’t. All possible options are thus exhausted.
A disclaimer would work fine… In my country we have these disclaimers before Mutual fund adds. Perhaps scientists should tag in a disclaimer before going question begging about whether life arose by fluke of it was the “laws of nature”.
But they have no choice but to do that. What the hell else should they be doing? How are they supposed to test supernatural creation methods? I’m serious. What is it you want them to do, at a real practical level. A scientist goes into a laboratory and does what experiment that tests the supernatural?
Wishing? Praying? Willing intensely till sweat builds up on their foreheads?
By the way, how do you test for unknown flukes/laws of nature?
By performing experiments and empirical observation. That’s how the laws of thermodynamics were discovered and formulated. Experiments lead to scientists being able to infer and formulate the laws of thermodynamics before they were known.
Why mention them if you are not in a position to test it?
You tell me. Why should God be mentioned in scientific articles if scientists are not in a position to test Him? What should it say in those articles? Do you want every research article in the origin of life field to end with a disclaimer “Oh btw maybe this isn’t how life originated at all and maybe God created life, we don’t know and we don’t know how to test it”? Should we start putting that into cancer research too? “Oh btw, maybe this cancer isn’t caused by this chemical, maybe it’s God’s supernatural powers, we don’t know and we don’t know how to test it”?