When a field cannot follow the standard scientific model of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, repeatability, and predictive power, yet the public is told it is a settled fact, the effect mirrors gaslighting. Abiogenesis has never been observed, tested, repeated, or demonstrated in controlled conditions. Evolution at the macro level has never been produced in a lab, measured, or replicated according to the scientific method. When people claim these ideas are “proven,” they shift the burden of proof, appeal to authority, and replace experiments with stories. That treatment trains the public to doubt their own common sense that real science requires observable data, testable steps, and repeatable outcomes. Calling speculation “fact” does not make it science. It only pressures people to accept a narrative that has never met the scientific standard.

Today, let us strip away the "textbook" idealism and focus on the raw facts of the matter regarding how science actually functions in the real world, which reveals a much more grounded and sometimes grittier reality. Here is the truth about the scientific establishment, written to focus on the human and systemic mechanics that drive it.

What Does Science Really Want: Truth or Useful Models? Before we talk about what science has found, we should know what it is trying to do. The standard definition of science is the methodical study of the natural world via observation and experimentation. That definition seems solid and well-known. But as we look into a lot of fields nowadays, especially those that look at deep time, complex systems, or indirect evidence, the border between observation and interpretation is not as clear. So, as we move into studying cosmology, origins research, artificial intelligence, and certain areas of theoretical physics, primarily rely on models that structure data rather than on experiments that can be replicated in controlled environments. This leads to a more fundamental inquiry: is the principal aim of research to uncover the true nature of reality, or to build models that sufficiently predict and control our observations?

I explore how the definition of science keeps changing. Traditional views call it the systematic study of the physical world through observation and experiment. Modern work often crosses those borders. We build models that predict well but may not capture the absolute truth. AI generates hypotheses from data. Large simulations replace some experiments. Funding and societal needs guide priorities.

Design Biology Forensic Evaluation Protocol (DB-FEP) Meanings and Principles Reference Sheet Version 1.0 – Work in progress January 2026

Design Biology Audit of Abiogenesis: When Lab Chemistry Isn’t the Same as Early Earth Hello everyone, Dr. Mason here. I will be reviewing a video I watched called "How did life begin? Abiogenesis. The origin of life from nonliving matter by Arvin Ash. What the video is aiming to show I hear one significant assertion in this video. Chemistry can make the parts, but life might start without magic. Then, over time and with a lot of testing, those sections can move toward the first living system. The video also conveys something that matters. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is about the beginning of life. Evolution is about how things change after life has already started. That difference is correct and valuable.

Molecule to Mandate: The Greatest Scam of the Ages Hello everyone. My name is Dr. Dan Mason. For those who know me, I have been writing about life, politics and science. I can't seem to find my niche. I want to talk about everything. However, I did not begin this article as a writer. I started it as a man who spent decades working inside systems that claim authority over other people’s lives. I have worn many different uniforms. I have helped enforce local, state, federal and international statutes.

What is the driving question concerning abiogenesis? When will abiogenesis fail to support itself? The more scientific research, the more complicated life becomes. At what point does the information become an abiogenesis trap when it collapses in on itself? Explain to me what will break abiogenesis in the eyes of its believers. How long can secular science and humanism hold on to abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis: The Trap of Atheism So how does atheism fit into our world, or more accurately, into our worldview? Atheists often proclaim that their lack of belief in a god is simply a harmless view, and therefore, they do not make a truth claim. Yet is that really the case? Let us now take a look at how atheism really operates as a civilizational operating system, how it governs beliefs without a transcendent Creator. Join me as I conduct this analysis to expose its structure, control points, and survival flaws. So let's set the stage; we will focus on logic alone.

Why I Am Writing This The reason I am writing directly to you is the persistent framing of this debate as settled science, which it is not. I am not attacking people. I am examining methods. Methods, not reputation, consensus, or comfort, determine the success or failure of science. When claims drift from testable evidence into narrative protection, the scientific method is no longer being used.