One of the major issues in the creation vs. evolution debate is the role of science. Evolutionists often claim science for themselves, even though the founding fathers were Christians trying to understand God’s creation. Creationists, therefore, use science as a tool, and that’s how Francis Bacon, the one most credited with establishing the scientific method, went about investigating the empirical world.

Evolutionists, however, employ fallacious tactics to win support, and this article from Popular Mechanics provides evidence. But first, keep in mind, evolutionists portray evolution as an established fact that may not be questioned.

So it’s worth noting anytime someone admits science could be wrong… or, more accurately- when scientists are wrong (not science). Evolutionists are fond of saying, “Science says” as a way to win support. After all, who wants to go against science? So I credit the author for correctly attributing the error to scientists. But then the author mistakenly states, “Ancient evidence suggests a new twist in how we all got here.” The problem is, evidence doesn’t suggest anything. Scientists do. This is a case of anthropomorphizing. And while the author avoided it in the headline, she failed in the byline.

Scientists must interpret the evidence based upon a worldview- a comprehensive framework or set of fundamental beliefs and assumptions one uses to understand and interpret the world. And in the case of evolutionists, they assume all life is related to a single common ancestor. All the evidence is interpreted in light of this belief, and this is one of the most important points to understand when it comes to investigating the past. No living person was there to witness the origin of the universe or the rise of life, so unprovable assumptions are made, and this is where evolutionists begin.

The author lists three bullet points, and the first begins with the belief that all life is related to a single common ancestor. Of course this assumes there was a last universal common ancestor (LUCA). This is not questioned, but assumed. If there is no common descent, however, then the premise is completely wrong and their ability to “quantify” amino acids is meaningless.

Then we learn some scientists want to revise evolutionary theory by coming up with a different way for the first genes to come about. And she refers to a “consensus” regarding the order that amino acids were added to our genes. Consensus is another buzz-word evolutionists use to garner support. After all, who wants to go against the consensus?

But what I find more fascinating is that the author correctly frames the views of the consensus. She says they maintain “assumptions” which “may reflect biases in our understanding of biotic (living) versus abiotic (non-living) sources.” Bingo! Most evolutionists won’t admit their biases and assumptions, but once in a while they have to let the cat out of the bag before proceeding.

Next the author describes the current model of gene history and mentions that scientists could have undervalued early “protolife.” Interestingly, proto-life refers to hypothetical precursors to living cells. They don’t exist in the real-world, but evolutionists assume they must have existed, otherwise their theory fails. Thankfully the author admits, “Our understanding of these extremely ancient times will always be incomplete.” Obviously. It’s impossible to go back in time and observe life emerging, so a secular model is required for those who refuse to consider God’s supernatural creation.

Nonethless, we’re told that scientists must continue the research anyway because “any improvements in that understanding could not only allow us to know more of our own story, but also help us search for the beginnings of life elsewhere in the universe.” Ah, so inventing fictional stories (that cannot be verified empirically) about the origin of life can help us understand ourselves and our search for life elsewhere! Of course… brilliant!

Except that the new understanding could be wrong too. But, hey, if the consensus buys into it, it makes for a good story, right?

To further this point the author states, “One big paradigm shift proposed by this research is the idea that we should rethink the order in which the 20 essential genetic amino acids emerged from the stew of early Earth.” A paradigm shift? That’s huge. This suggests what they told us before was wrong, and now they want us to trust them with a new paradigm that may be wrong. Of course, they’d try to convince us that our understanding of science has improved, which is a matter of opinion.

Further, scientists speculate that the amino acids could have come from all over a “young earth.” I do agree with a young earth, but that’s not what they have in mind. These scientists have run into obstacles, but they invent theories to overcome them. They come up with all kinds of “could have” or “might have” scenarios to satisfy their conclusions.

In the end, scientists think they can look to one of Saturn’s moons for more clues! I love space exploration, so I predict there will be nothing of interest there. But that won’t deter evolutionary scientists from coming up with something else.

The last point is that evolutionists emphatically claim that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. However, this article thoroughly refutes such a claim. This entire article is about the origin of life and is filled with evolutionary lingo. Consider:

1: Scientists are building an “evolutionary” tree of protein domains (so to speak).

2: The article refers to “all things evolutionary.”

3: It refers to how genes first “emerged” (evolution).

4: The “order” in which building-block amino acids were added (evolution).

5: It speaks of the way amino acids “appeared” (evolution).

6: “Stepwise construction of the current code and competition among ancient codes could have occurred simultaneously” (code for evolution).

7: Abiotic synthesis (evolution).

So, while evolutionists won’t admit that the origin of life has anything to do with evolution, in reality, the origin of life is about evolution. We can see this plainly in their work.

As a creationist, I suggest it’s far more logical to believe God created the heavens and earth in six days, just as the Bible says. This explains why life doesn’t emerge spontaneously from nonliving material and why we never see this occurring in nature. Life only comes from life.