The window for debate was open in the latter half of the 19th century, and I recall being involved in it myself in high school science class even in the mid-1960s. I think the window's closed. Science won. I switched sides myself for a decade, in the earlier 2000s.

I'm not here to disagree with what you've written here -- I have seen more than enough evidence to support it, apart from what you contribute -- and thank you for that. But I seek to comprehend a larger picture within which this one fits.

Scientific "progress" fueled industrial "progress", "giving us many of the benefits we take for granted today." This is a narrative that also begs examination and debate. Whatever benefits there may have been, they came at the cost of disruptions and destruction of families, health, connection with our origin, and most anything else that might be considered truly important.

The loss of connection with our origin, and the loss of understanding of what we are here to do was the most devastating. Replacing it, beginning in the 19th century, were a series of models (stories) that still pass for scientific truth today in spite of errors and contradictions, and on which scientism is founded as a replacement religion.

I embraced scientism myself, in my 50's into my 60s (c. 2002-2016), having become disenchanted (more than once) with my traditional beliefs, because of the behavior of others who also claimed to hold them. It was a mistake, but a good one that offered the opportunity to appreciate science for all it was worth. And then something happened. I increased my reading, adding in books and journals addressing a wide variety of scientific topics, not that I wasn't already well-read in science before that.

I guess it was inevitable, though, that these sources would also expose the corruption that was endemic within science-for-industry, leading to the "research results cooked up to order -- anything you can afford" industry of science itself.

I learned how to fake research results, and how to spot research that was faked, and just how much of this irreproducible junk there was. And I reconsidered the tradition I had left, keeping my eyes open still to the problems it presented.

It is good to be aware of and to explore and expose these issues we see within science today. But it is not good to continue to "trust the science" in matters of 'settled science' dating back to the 19th century and before. The details have changed, but the underlying principles have not. The problems we see today are not new.

Science has canceled God in the minds of many, but the claims used to accomplish that have not been proven. In this sense nothing has changed. One of the worst mistakes we can make is to fail to examine the science behind such beliefs, seeing that where science went in the past is modern as can be.