As a matter of simple honesty, there is not yet a scientific explanation for the origin of life. In that sense, creationist accounts tend to be superior: they offer an explanation with less need for deliberate misrepresentation.
This claim arises from an update in Popular Mechanics (Brouilette, 2022). According to that article, scientists at Hiroshima University have demonstrated that molecules colliding in a primordial soup could have assembled themselves and multiplied.
Not to get our hopes up, however, the article goes on to quote scientists who are not terribly impressed. For instance, as one points out, the molecular activity captured in the study is not actually the kind of self-assembly and self-multiplication found in living things.
Evolution is most compelling to those who are determined to believe that faith is no substitute for evidence. The phrasing falsifies itself: they believe what they will hopefully be able to prove, at some unspecified point in the future. Faith now, science later (maybe). Fake it until you make it.
The theory of evolution continues to rely entirely on faith rather than evidence at crucial points in its tale – including the one just mentioned, at Hiroshima University. The evidence is not there. It may never be there. All that’s there is the faith that someone, someday, might find the evidence somewhere.
Obviously, creation accounts are exceedingly dependent on speculation and wishful thinking. What makes them superior, in situations like this, is that at least they’re honest about it.
I say that in a qualified meaning of “honest.” Many creationists will lie to you about the evidence supporting their beliefs. What makes them more honest than scientists is that you can tell it’s all for show. They don’t really care about the evidence. Yes, they talk out of both sides of their mouth; but at least they do admit that theirs is a religion of faith.
At various times, and in various ways, creationists tend to take pride in believing what they want to believe, regardless of evidence. They are generally not consistent in misrepresenting what they’re up to. Unlike evolutionary science, creationism does not uniformly seek to deceive anyone into believing that it relies solely upon empirical fact.
God, Spirituality, the Supernatural, and All That 