neither are extraordinary - both are dogmatic (as in a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds). I thought the objective of our studies on MArs was to find what is or was there, not to propogate beliefs without supporting evidence. That does not preclude putting forth hypotheses from which one can make predictions which can in turn be tested. If the tests fail then the hypothesis is revised. That is the scientific method. But it seems that (as a wild generalization) too often the science of Mars is stuck at the hypothesis stage and not enough attention is paid to the 2nd to 4th stages. So if you propose some feature represents life, then think also of the consequences of that life and how they might be detected. But I still hold that life is far more extraordinary than any inorganic reaction.