Quoted By:
There are some valid hypothesis like the Gaia hypothesis which targets the often unaddressed positive nature of evolution when it has the potential to be utterly negative & non-compounding.
Religious objectors also speak about how assumptions of science are as indefinite as Christian beliefs & are in their nature the same thing, though they may have different directions & structures, scientific 'truth' claims rely on things taken as true without evidence (see naturalism, physicalism, empiricism, occam's razor, assumption of discoverability, etc.)
And they also question the ability of truly complex circumstances & structures to arise unaided. Such as the development of complex RNA structures which no scientists have been able to emulate even in a laboratory environment nor observe in nature. Similarly, theories across the sciences have glaring holes that they are willing to believe will be answered by scientific means, although these beliefs are not necessarily warranted by empirical, physical evidence, contradicting their own assumptions.
I love science & I support its endeavors, yet I recognize the possibility of inquiry to extend beyond the limits of modern scientific structures, beliefs, & errors.
& I suggest everyone return more to something like skepticism (but not cynicism), questioning things regardless if their source but not as absurdum & also considering things to their end rather than outright objecting, scientific, religious, politically, or otherwise.
