You’re missing something that science-as-religion made people forget. Science is just one type of knowledge that isn’t even how most people learn most knowledge most of the time. We mostly learn by testimony from sources we trust mixed with experiential learning. Works fine. We also have science.

So, we first need to get back to the pre-Hume period where godless, materialistic science wasn’t the answer to all questions or the only way forward. Second, we must be able to say what we’ve always known: it’s OK for science to say “I have no idea. We might never know that because we can’t scientifically observe or test it.” That’s what they should say about the origin of life.

What can we know? We can indirectly observe the attributes to take guesses. If not knowing, we can work with God’s design rather than against it. Really, only revelatory knowledge… the Creator telling us… will tell us anything close to the truth. We’ve claimed both.

I already posted evidence for the Bible being the Word of God in this thread. People who follow Jesus Christ treat key claims as axioms before layering reasoned statements on top of those and scientific observations. Unlike other faiths, we’ve found no contradictions. Unlike godless science with its axioms, ours lead us somewhere where every action in science should reflect godly character and love for others as commanded.

Then, there’s the intelligent design evidence coming from complexity and systems theory. Universe, natural laws, and organic life make the best creations of humans look dumb and inept in comparison. Especially how the universe runs perfectly. Best I’ve seen humans claim is nine 9’s reliability on something way, way simpler. They couldn’t sustain it either.

Fyi, I'm not negating evolution per se. I'm operating strictly within the realm of the empiricism-based scientific method. It should not be so sensitive to scrutiny and skepticism.

So creationism or not, let me pose the simple challenge to you as well:

Can you name a single species whose speciation-by-random-mutation we have actually observed?

You see, the hard fact, which many of my beloved scientistic friends have yet to come to terms with, is that technically speaking, the speciation-by-random-mutation is a scientifically invalid hypothesis because it is not even falsifiable. In other words, it is a mere conjecture (and sadly nowadays even a doctrinal belief) like any other, from an honest, objective, naturalistic point of view. But I don't even need to get into that because most of my beloved atheists will already have more of an impulsive emotional reaction to that rather than facing it head-on.