“Evolution science” is an oxymoron.
1st, Darwin who seems to many to be the initiator of the “evolution” conjecture, knew nothing of “origins” - despite writing on the concept;
2nd, Darwin knew nothing of how evolution might be explained;
3rd, he made observations of finches that seemed adapted to their environment, without a clue as to how that developed; he further speculated on the notion of “survival of the fittest” without the slightest clue how that developed.
4th, he assumed speciation was the rule among lifeforms, and that that notion was supported by a presumed “adaptation” to environmental change.
Ever hear of Lysenko?? Whereas Darwin was just ignorant, Lysenko was a fraud.
For evolution to have a chance of becoming a solid science, knowledge of “origins” - first appearance of a life form - is essential.
For it to be quite convincing, there is the need to produce, in the laboratory, a life-form that is developed using pure chemicals, using simple components to demonstrate that those simple components are building blocks for complex macromolecules, and that the synthesis is somehow regulated by other chemicals, simple and macromolecular alike, in coordinated biochemical processes.
That ALL remains to be accomplished despite early attempts to shoot electric pulses through a mixture of gases, and more recent attempts by Craig Venter.
I am almost comfortable in the LACK of knowledge of how “evolution by natural selection” remains to be scientifically demonstrated.
I lack the ability to be convinced by faith. Or - gasp - by polls of scientists across scientific - and NON-SCIENTIFIC - disciplines [as has recently been the case with ‘global warming mysticism’].