I often talk to people about the scientific method, abiogenesis, and evolution. Many hold strong views on these topics. They see abiogenesis and evolution as settled truths, the only options since they reject God and the Genesis account. I point out the flaws in this thinking. Let me explain my view step by step.

First, recall the scientific method. Scientists observe the world, form questions, and make hypotheses. They test these ideas with experiments and gather data. If the data fits, the hypothesis gains support. If not, they revise or discard it. No idea becomes an absolute fact. Theories like gravity or relativity explain facts well, but they stay open to new evidence. Science builds knowledge through doubt and testing, not final proofs.

Now, consider abiogenesis. This idea says life started from nonliving chemicals on early Earth. Researchers suggest ways this happened, like in warm ponds or deep-sea vents. They run lab tests to mimic conditions. Some create simple molecules, such as amino acids. Yet, no one has made a full living cell from scratch. Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis with gaps. We lack direct proof from billions of years ago. It fits some data, but other explanations exist. People call it a fact, but science shows it as unproven.

Evolution follows a similar path. Darwin proposed that species change over time through natural selection. Fossils, DNA, and observations back this up. Bacteria resist antibiotics, and finches adapt their beaks. These examples support the theory. Still, evolution is not a proven fact in every detail. Gaps persist, like the Cambrian explosion, where many animal forms appeared rapidly. Macroevolution, from one kind to another, lacks full observation. We infer it from evidence, but debates continue. Science refines the theory, not declares it final.

Many say, "No God exists, so Genesis is false. I must accept abiogenesis and evolution." This traps them in a false choice. They assume only two paths: religious creation or natural origins. Reality offers more options. Perhaps an unknown force started life. Or intelligent design fits the data better. This thinking commits a logical fallacy called false dilemma. It ignores the middle ground and forces extremes.

Scientifically, this view twists the method. Science does not prove negatives, like "no God." Absence of evidence for one idea does not confirm another. This is the argument from ignorance fallacy. They claim abiogenesis and evolution win by default, without full proof. True science demands positive evidence, not just rejection of alternatives.

I urge people to question what they hear. Schools and media present these ideas as facts, but dig deeper. Read original papers and criticisms. The scientific method thrives on skepticism. Beliefs shape our views, but blind acceptance harms progress. I choose to explore all angles, free from forced choices.