Here, an atheist writes… “There are a lot of as yet unexplained yet observed phenomena; the difference is that the lack of explanation results in inquiry through the scientific process rather than pulling answers out of a hat.” So let us respond.

You are confusing two different things. Inquiry is good. I welcome inquiries. But abiogenesis and macroevolution are not “unexplained observations.” They are explanations that have already failed their own tests. When a model makes predictions and every core prediction collapses, the scientific response is not “keep the model and wait.” The scientific response is “the model is wrong.”

We are not dealing with a mystery that needs more time. We are dealing with a story that contradicts the data we already have.

• Prebiotic chemistry does not produce homochirality.
• It does not produce long, stable polymers in water.
• It does not produce concentrated building blocks.
• It does not survive UV and oxygen at the same time.
• It does not produce encoded information.

That is not “we lack answers.” That is “the proposed answer breaks down at every step.”

The same applies to macroevolution.

• Mutations degrade genomes.
• Waiting-time math is hopeless.
• Functional protein folds sit in impossible sequence deserts.
• Fossils show sudden appearance and stasis, not transitions.
• Irreducible systems do not build themselves part by part.

Again, this is not a knowledge gap. This is a model falsified by observation. Science does not keep failed explanations on life support.

Science replaces them.

You accuse me of “pulling answers out of a hat.”

No. I am pointing to the one cause that we already know can write code, build machines, direct assembly, and produce functional information: intelligence.

When the naturalistic path breaks at chemistry, physics, information theory, math, and the fossil record, the burden shifts. Not to “more inquiry.” To a new cause. Bad theories do not earn patience.

They get replaced.

Please like, share and follow to learn more.