No, a shameless substitution of words doesn't.
Your way relies on testimony. Science relies on experiment with evidence. In yours, you have to wonder if testimony is given by a nut, a liar, or a non tangible spirit. There is no way to know for sure. Science relies on concrete evidence with tests that can be duplicated by critics. This is a big difference.
> Science relies on concrete evidence
All I saw in that article was conjecture about what the evidence means.
The origin of life is not repeatable, neither is the emergence of a bat from a shrew.
And imagine the irony of the announcement that, after millions of man-hours of investigation and experimentation, by thousands of scientists in laboratories all over the world, using billions of dollars worth of the latest state-of-the-art laboratory equipment, a primitive life form has been created, proving once and for all, no intelligence is necessary to create life.