Nearly two centuries after Charles Darwin formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection, resistance to evolutionary science persists among influential strands of Christian thought, particularly within creationist and Intelligent Design (ID) movements. This study examines recent publications by Olen R. Brown and David A. Hullender, whose peer-reviewed papers exemplify how this ideological conflict can manifest within scientific discourse. Although written in technically calibrated language, their arguments reproduce the rhetorical structure of Christian apologetics—characterized by moralizing tone, faith-based framing, and metaphysical vocabulary disguised as empirical reasoning. Using GPT-5 for linguistic and semantic analysis, combined with manual verification, this study identifies recurring patterns consistent with apologetic framing embedded in ostensibly scientific texts. The results demonstrate how theological rhetoric can infiltrate peer-reviewed literature through the idioms of biomathematics, complex systems theory and artificial intelligence, often invoking complexity or emergence to confer scientific legitimacy. These findings underscore the importance of epistemic vigilance in interdisciplinary research. Detecting and contextualizing such rhetorical patterns is essential to safeguarding scientific integrity and preventing the instrumentalization of academic publishing for theological or ideological ends.