The history of the world and its life could hardly be more different between the Bible's account and that of modern evolutionary naturalism. Some recent scientific reports fit with a designed, recent creation, and do not fit with evolution.
The "habitable zone" of a planet usually concerns its distance from the star such that it can support liquid water. But what if the star fries the surface with intense stellar winds?
The headlines for some scientific news stories might leave philosophers of science wagging their heads. Few, though, are the reporters willing to call something really dumb, or at least questionable—especially if it appears to support evolution.
Hydrogen cyanide is one of the most reactive and toxic molecules we know, but astrobiologists view it with almost alchemical qualities for the origin of life.
Planetary scientists have figured out that the geysers of Enceladus vary during its orbit, but seem oddly silent about the question of how long the little moon could remain so active.
Anything "could" happen. Shouldn't science deal with what does happen and what did happen? The "could" word is rampant in astrobiology literature and origin-of-life studies.