Here’s another example of an evolutionary belief being masqueraded as science.

When scientists put a man on the moon, cure diseases, invent useful technology, announce exciting discoveries, and solve problems, these are the things that make science great and helpful. But when scientists step outside this world of operational science and into historical or forensic science, they are now espousing their personal beliefs and political opinions. This is not real science.

Consider this article from Retraction Watch, in which a peer reviewed paper submitted by a Nobel Laureate in 2016 has now been retracted because the results could not be reproduced. This embarrassing correction was needed mainly due to a belief in evolution- or, more specifically, abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is the belief that life on earth began spontaneously from non-living chemicals and natural processes. The problem is, there’s no evidence for it. It’s a belief- a religious one, at that.

On the contrary, one of the most fundamental laws in nature dictates that life only comes from life. There are no known exceptions. This means that a piece of rotting meat left out on the table won’t spontaneously produce living organisms, like worms, maggots or flies. In order for maggots to form on rotting meat, flies would need to lay eggs, and those eggs would need to hatch. This was demonstrated by the scientist Louis Pasteur in his experiments beginning in 1857.

There are no known examples of any violation to this law- life only comes from life. But evolutionists must believe this law was violated at least once in order for life to exist on earth and evolve to where we are today.

And it’s this kind of evolutionary thinking that led to a retraction of a research paper hypothesizing that RNA spontaneously ‘evolved’ before DNA. You see, DNA, RNA and proteins are required for life, but they’re each interdependent upon the other. Secular scientists have been trying to solve this origin of life conundrum for over a hundred years, but are no closer than when they first began.

Jack W. Szostak shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009, and the paper he submitted to a peer reviewed journal was supposed to provide a partial solution to the origin of life problem. He attempted to demonstrate that RNA could be partially replicated without enzymes.

Jeff Tomkins of the Institute for Creation Research said, “the scientists essentially cheated” because they used peptides to keep the products from binding to one another, and the process wasn’t “exclusively RNA-based.”

In addition, other major errors were found in the paper, and the study couldn’t be replicated.

The apology by the authors illustrates a very important point. It read, “In retrospect, we were totally blinded by our belief”, “we were not as careful or rigorous as we should have been”. This was actually the second time Szostak had a paper retracted. And he admitted the errors were “definitely embarrassing.”

Really? It’s rare for scientists to admit that their work was the result of biased beliefs and not evidence. Yet this is something creation scientists have been pointing out for decades. If everything that has happened in the past can be explained by a particular worldview, then the evidence we use to reach those conclusions must be interpreted in light of that worldview. Evolutionary scientists who want to believe life came about spontaneously are basically trying to explain how something impossible is possible. Even though all the evidence leads us to conclude that life only comes from life, that evidence is discarded in favor of a particular belief, or worldview.

Most evolutionists won’t admit this, so it’s refreshing to hear the authors of this study acknowledge the truth.

As a creationist, I believe God created life, just as the Bible explains. And the scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports this.