Is the “primordial soup” theory — the idea that life emerged from a prebiotic broth — past its expiration date?
Biochemist Nick Lane thinks so. The University College London writer and his colleagues argue that the 81-year-old notion just doesn’t hold water.
So science is always right? Then why do they change their mind every decade or so?
Irish Tory 
By definition of what science is, science changes its mind all the time.
In light of new evidence, these guys are adjusting their hypothesis and theories. This is the scientific method.
Like going from Newton’s theory of gravitation to Einstein’s… science “changed its mind” when there was sufficient, tangible, evidence to “prove a theory”. And when new evidence pops up — like those neutrinos supposedly traveling faster than the speed of light, science is embracing the change. As it always does.
From the wiki page on the scientific method:
“Any scientific theory is closely tied to empirical findings, and always remains subject to falsification if new experimental observation incompatible with it is found. That is, no theory can ever be seriously considered certain as new evidence falsifying it can be discovered.”
I understand your contempt for science doesn’t have anything to do with science per se, but rather this perceived notion that scientists are smug elitists steeped in their humanistic dogma. Especially when it comes to abiogenesis or evolution — which directly challenges a literal interpretation of the bible.
But that doesn’t excuse you from deriding the scientific method on a false premise.