Great post. Saddens me to see scientific explanations reach the same level of superficial repetition that religion previously held the award for. My primary criticism of the modern, mainstream scientific narrative concerns the nature of information itself. Namely, that the information we know of cannot be spoken of without the channels in which it exists to be spoken of simultaneously. For example, everything you see with your eyes is visual data - the combination of light entering the eye and the brain subsequently interpreting it into an image (though the contradiction in that narrative is how the brain, itself an object of vision, could therefore be said to exist within the process of vision itself, given the circularity invoked). Everything you have ever seen and will ever see is visual. The sky, the sun, the stars, the trees, the oceans, and so forth. If you ever speak of any entity, you're speaking of the mediums it was known to you through: speaking of something visual, like the sun, you're speaking of a) vision, the medium of any visual b) the sun, the object of vision and c) consciousness, the container of all information.
How, then, do scientists simultaneously speak about astronomical statistics and of evolutionary ones, when the former data is contained within the latter? How could the eye be claimed to have "evolved", while the stars and sun which the eye has shown to us simultaneously claimed to exist before said eye itself existed? Similarly, time itself has only been known through consciousness, and therefore anytime the past is spoken of, be it 4 seconds ago or 14 billion years ago, you're merely taking the data of your present experience, and extrapolating it backwards. Consciousness would therefore still be implicated, in that equation. Speaking about the universe, 14 billion years ago? You're speaking about yourself, 14 billion years ago. Speaking about the stars and the sun a few billion years ago? Same thing, but with the eye. (1/2)