It's pretty limited what you can gather from individual grains captured at hypersonic velocities and analyzed with spacecraft-sized instruments. Certainly there was no "clear evidence of life" from Enceladus - although it showed us some very promising things about the potential habitability of its oceans.
Personally, I'm not a believer in the theory that wherever there's liquid water, there's life. First off, it'd make the Fermi paradox even worse, as water is bloody everywhere. Secondly, I think it's incredibly naive. The argument goes, wherever we find water on Earth, we find life, and whereever we don't, we don't, so we should expect that with the universe. But that says nothing about how life came about. Sure, LAWKI requires hydrogen, and water is the most convenient source of hydrogen, so obviously that's going to form the boundaries of where life has spread to. But where it's spread to says nothing about where it originated, or what it looked like when it did. We have no reason to think that the entire wet surface of Earth just spontaneously erupted into life; we certainly don't see anything resembling this in laboratory abiogenesis experiments. So what were the specific conditions that brought life about? I think it's a safe bet that they were rare. Quite likely no longer present on Earth, as Earth was a radically different place back then. And quite possibly rare in the universe as a whole. Little bursts of luck separated by great relativistic distances.
Indeed, bodies like Europa (and the many other bodies confirmed to or believed to have subsurface water in our solar system) should help answer these questions. I'm also exceedingly curious about what's gone on with alternative solvents and polymeric compounds, such as at the surface of Titan (I find the cyanide chemistry there fascinating, it seems to be extremely flexible).