And with good reason. They accurately predict outcomes. That's all we require to call a statement correct, or knowledge. One would need to falsify such an idea to identify it as incorrect, which can't happen with a correct idea.
When you add statistical math to science, all bets are off. I have read studies where coffee is good for you and then not good for you, all based on the day the study was run. I would assume you would not call this good science.
In my many decades of debating creationist thinking the well educated have to be very careful with word use and definitions. These Christians are deceptive and dishonest in using certain words and definitions, and one of these words is "chance". Christians use their own distorted meaning, and will interject their meanings at times when it isn't appropriate.
These debates are seldom about well educated people illuminating each other on the latest finding of science. It is the well educated correcting the disinformation and deceptive thinking of religious people. We critical thinkers are well aware of what is happening here, the religious don't seem to be. This suggests self-deception on the part of the religious.
A stream is going to follow a path of least resistance. If by chance there is a cold winter, and by chance a lot of snowfall, and by chance a sudden melting of snow come spring, there will be vastly more water flowing down mountains, and the increase in this water can mean flooding of streams and rivers, and this can mean a change in the paths they take. This was not a plan, or goal. This is just the circumstances of nature due to abnormal patterns of the weather which were deviations due to chance. This happens all the time in nature because nature is dynamic and subject to changes.
You theists keep trying to force in plans, goals, and design into what we observe, and distorting that chance is a set of limited options that can result in dramatic changes. You keep trying to find a place for your gods. We well educated understand that chance just means there were some natural options, but you believers want to define whatever happened as a divine chance of the god lottery. We then correct your error.
I was a trained as a scientist with a graduate degree in chemical engineering. That is one of the most complete science educations you can get, since the core requirements spans the widest range of pure and applied science and engineering of all sciences. You need to know good science to scale theory.
My problem is not with all science, but with those areas of science that are overly dependent, on statistical models. The black box and margin of error approach makes bad theory look better than it is actually is.
A rational theory has a much harder standard of proof. If one data point was found not to work, rational theories will need to be revised. Newtonian mechanics did not work at relativistic conditions, so another theory called relativity needed to be developed. Both are still used, based on which conditions.
In more modern terms, it was discovered the core of the earth rotates faster than the surface of the earth. Since this was not predicted or even taken into account by current earth models, these current models should be revised to take the new data into account and make it all connect if they are rational. Check to see if earth science is holding its part of the bargain. If not, this science is not leading by example.
On the other hand, statistical type theories, have builtin fudge factors. The best curve does not even have to touch all the data to be able to form a theory. That much fudge makes it impossible to hold that type of theory to the same high standard as any rational theory. Bad statistical theory can linger way too long because of this statistical fudge approach. Rational theory need to hit the bulls eye, while statistical theory only has to hit the target stand. Not all theory has the same.
For example it can be proven that DNA lacks functionality without water. Yet science education stills shows DNA as naked, as though naked DNA is bio-active and does everything claimed of active DNA. This odd situation has to do with fudge math, being overly important to biology The margin of error is used to ignore water, even with falsifying experiments using water. On can not get rid of these bad premises, due to the fudge allowing this bad theory to stand way too long.
Statistics is the same math used by gambling casinos, politicians, and pollsters, none of which are the most trusted or reliable business. Each uses the same math to drive their own predictions. The main problem with this common math, is fuzzy theory in science can be handed off and become politically driven. The theory only have to moves it between two black boxes. The reverse is also true, if Politics say genders diversity is natural, science can use the black box to fetch a theory.
Is Lady Luck the goddess of statistics and fuzzy dice? I want to open the black box see what god can defy common sense reason and get better treatment than rational theory? Not all of science behaves this way, but the ones that do, tend to become the most political, due to the easy handoff connected to their common math. Evolution has been political since day one and it is based on fuzzy math. Politicians do not argue over chemistry or particle physics, since this is more rational and cannot be shaken with a black box. Medicine and disease can get political, due the common fuzzy dice math; COVID takes sides.
