I will start with my challenge. “Can abiogenesis and biological evolution be investigated and evaluated using the scientific method, and if so, to what extent?”

Why I Am Writing This

I am writing to you directly because this debate keeps being framed as settled science when it is not. I am not attacking people. I am examining methods. Science lives or dies on method, not on reputation, consensus, or comfort. When claims drift from testable evidence into narrative protection, the scientific method is no longer being used.

What I Am Noticing That Others Ignore

What I see is a pattern that repeats itself across evolutionary anthropology. Fossils are rare. Data are fragmentary. Timelines are inferred. That does not stop them. They proclaim certainty anyway. Nonetheless, when later discoveries contradict earlier claims, the story shifts but the worldview stays protected. That is not science. That is ideology maintenance.

The Core Scientific Problem

Let us be clear, without abiogenesis, there is no beginning. Without evolution, there is no continuation. Life is a process, a beginning, a middle, and an end. They are logical requirements. If life does not arise from non-life through natural processes, then the evolutionary story never starts as we have been told. The naturalist says there is simply no other way, and they refused to consider any. However, if evolution cannot demonstrably generate new biological information that produces novel body plans, then the story cannot continue. Both steps are required. Neither has been demonstrated using the scientific method.

Lucy as a Case Study in Scientific Drift

Lucy was elevated to icon status because she fit a narrative. She was presented as a clear transitional form between apes and humans. That status lasted decades, not because the evidence was strong, but because alternatives were weak or missing. Now that additional fossils complicate the picture, Lucy’s status weakens. That alone tells me something important. A true scientific conclusion becomes stronger with new data. Lucy’s status becomes weaker.

What the New Fossils Actually Show

The new fossils show diversity and variety within the same species, not in one direction. The evidence clearly shows that multiple hominin species existed at the same time with overlapping traits. That does not demonstrate ancestry. It demonstrates variation within a kind (species). The materialists roll pass that fact, yet we know that before you can declare ancestry, science requires showing a clear, testable mechanism of transformation over time. That has not been done. What we see instead are isolated snapshots interpreted through assumption.

Where the Scientific Method Breaks Down

Evolution and abiogenesis provide us with a clear view of the separation between soft and hard science. The scientific method requires observation, hypothesis, prediction, testing, and replication. Fossil interpretation fails at testing and replication. No one can test whether Australopithecus afarensis became Homo. No one can replicate the process. What remains is interpretation layered onto fragments. Interpretation is not experimentation. Opinion is not evidence. However, within these pseudosciences (Abiogenesis and Macro-Evolution) lies the heart of the problem, interpretation by worldview.

Convergent Evolution as an Escape Hatch

When facts appear to contradict the prescribed scientific model, facts don’t matter; only feelings do. We are told that the reason we failed to understand is that we do not have a big enough imagination. When similarities appear that contradict linear ancestry, convergent evolution gets invoked. That move should raise alarms by itself. It’s perfect, it explains everything and predicts nothing. When a concept explains any outcome, it stops being scientific. It becomes a narrative patch used to protect the larger claim. The naturalists aim to protect turf, even to the bitter end.

Why This Is Not Neutral Science

I am watching scientists disagree sharply while the public is told the science is settled. That contradiction matters. If experts cannot agree on ancestry, then claims of certainty are unjustified. What is being protected is not evidence but control over the origin story. Origins define meaning. Meaning defines power. That is why this debate never slows down.

The Absence of Proof

No fossil demonstrates transformation. No fossil demonstrates genetic innovation. No fossil demonstrates abiogenesis. Each step is assumed, not shown. The scientific method does not allow assumptions to replace evidence. When that happens, the method has already been abandoned.

Why This Matters Beyond Lucy

They are smart, but they are believers in themselves and their worldview. We are not part of their guild; they are a close-knit society with their rituals and shared goals. This is not about Lucy alone. Lucy is just a symbol. They know that if Lucy (she is sacred, like the skull of Geronimo) can fall, any fossil can. That reveals how fragile the entire framework is. A robust scientific theory does not depend on preserving icons. It survives challenges. This one is magical; it’s a shapeshifter, it can reshape itself to survive.

My Final Statement

I want to make this clear. I’m not turning real science away. I am standing up for actual science here; I am going back to the scientific method that they have abandoned. They, however, depend on a story—specifically, an origin story (abiogenesis) that aligns with how they see the world. Scientists need to be humble, honest about what they don’t know, and able to control themselves. They are writing as if they know it’s certain. However, there is no beginning in their flawed worldview until abiogenesis is shown to be true. Next, there is no continuing until it is demonstrated that macroevolution creates new biological information. All other evidence is just their personal views. But that’s how they see the world, and they can’t live without it.

Thanks for reading