The "habitable zone" of a planet usually concerns its distance from the star such that it can support liquid water. But what if the star fries the surface with intense stellar winds?
Hydrogen cyanide is one of the most reactive and toxic molecules we know, but astrobiologists view it with almost alchemical qualities for the origin of life.
Origin-of-life researchers assume that intelligently-designed experiments in the lab can inform them about the emergence of life without design – in short, that design proves non-design.
Planetary scientists have figured out that the geysers of Enceladus vary during its orbit, but seem oddly silent about the question of how long the little moon could remain so active.
Anything "could" happen. Shouldn't science deal with what does happen and what did happen? The "could" word is rampant in astrobiology literature and origin-of-life studies.
Why aren't philosophers of science shaming origin-of-life researchers out of the science department? OOL theories depend on imagination, not empirical evidence, for their broad-brush conclusions.