It’s not being “motivated to disbelieve the most widely supported” explanation, more than it’s attempting to address some contradictions that the most widely held theory has a handful of potentially serious contradictions that only seem very loosely addressed. Essentially argued unimportant due to the other evidence in favor of it.

While the abiogenic theory has contradictions as well, but presents an extremely compelling explanation. I don’t “adhere” to either, but think the abiogenic theory is very interesting and I think the simple “the default must be true” mentality makes it much easier for the vast majority to ignore the contradictions in the status quo, while believing any inability to fully explain every piece in an alternative theory suggests what we already think must, by default, be the truth.

I obviously only have limited knowledge of this and it’s mostly a passing interest of mine. But I think both are compelling explanations and neither has conclusively convinced me.

I’m less inclined to simply believe what I’m told because those things have turned out to be wrong a *ton* of times in my past. If the economics, civics, nutrition, and medical “truths” I was taught (plus every war we’ve been through was built on staggering piles of bullshit), then why should I blindly believe the other “norms” they are so certain of? Seems to have a pretty garbage track record so far in my life, and not that some of these theories were just a little wrong either, it’s often terribly wrong with disastrous consequences…

So I choose to leave it open. Seems like a very reasonable decision from my perspective. 🤷🏻‍♂️