1) Please tell us why you think that the "bogus" assumption you mentioned was made.
2) Tell us why you think it is bogus.
It's a strawman argument. Among the various conjectures currently being considered, none includes the proposition that genes and proteins sprang fully-formed into the world.
I don't know of any IDist or Creationist who thinks that. The odds I gave do not reflect that assumption. The odds reflect the "likelyhood" of the required components being 1) created/ formed; 2) Getting to the same location; and 3) being properly configured.
Then there is the chaperon requirement- proteins that guide the amino acid sequences to the destination where they will be folded and configured for function.
But anyway RNA and DNA are delicate macro-molecules. Amino acid sequences and the sugar-phosphate backbone don't just lay around waiting for more amino acids to come washing their way.
That all depends on what is meant by abiogenesis. If abiogenesis means life arising from non-life via unintelligent, blind/ undirected processes, then abio is NOT self-evident.
It may seem like a semantic quibble, but there is an important difference between a conjecture and an axiom. One of the axioms of science is that everything is the result of natural processes.
Not only is it a quibble but it is a meaningless quibble as the origins of nature cannot be the result of natural processes because natural processes only exist in nature.
How about this: Everything that exists in nature had a cause.
Everything that exists in nature can be explained.
One more time- the "Church" did so because of the pressure put on it by the Aristoleans at the universities. IOW it was the academics who convinced the Church that this is what the Bible says.
I think this might be debatable as a historical point. If I considered it worth debating, I would probably begin by pointing out that the wording of the Genesis account rather unambiguously indicates a geocentric universe.
The Hebrew text? Or some lame translation? And yes it does make a difference.
I probably should have included Aristotle in my list of suspects in the crime of sowing confusion.
Seeing that all roads of geocentrism lead to him, he would be kind of hard to avoid.
I might provisionally accept your claim that the Roman Catholic Church had been influenced (though I question the degree to which it would have been likely to bow to 'pressure'), but I don't know that I could consider it less culpable because of that fact.
Culpable of what?
Earth's early atmosphere is thought to have contained little or no free oxygen.
Actually the version of abiogenesis I was talking about requires it. However there isn't any evidence to support that requirement.