I'd agree with that within the current philosophical framework that science has been held hostage in.
Science has been held hostage by the marxist, materialistic naturalism philosophy for some time now. For someone who is looking for a no God, no intelligence allowed explanation of how life arose on the earth, then yes, within this restrictive boundary that has been set on science, the ToE probably is the best that a naturalistic, no intelligence allowed science can come up with.
But don't forget, that science as we know it today deals with only a fraction of reality. According to it's practitioners, it is not equipped to nor capable of dealing with anything outside of that framework. So the other explanations of how life arose, creationism in particular, are not subject to science's scrutiny.
Since science is only dealing with part of reality, it is in no position to judge on what it doesn't deal with. It can make judgments about what fits within its own framework and HOPE that it's right, but can't be sure. It absolutely cannot make any determination on matters outside that physical world that it deals with.
Just because something is outside the physical, material world, doesn't mean that it's not real or not true. Just because the ToE is the best that current science has to offer does not mean that it's true, that it's correct, or that we have to accept it by default because it's all SCIENCE has to offer. Nor does it mean that by default any non-scientific explanation is wrong.
Nobody is under any obligation to accept as true something that scientists can't demonstrate as true themselves.
That also means that those who do not accept the hardline ToE as fact, do not need to put up with the nonsense of derision and ridicule and mockery that is regularly hurled our way simply because we don't toe the party line.
Not every challenge to the ToE is a religious argument. That's an intellectually dishonest attempt to shut down debate by disqualifying the arguments before they're even given consideration.
So true. And some scientists want to be the shamans of the new world.
I think you are coming close to understanding the point I've endlessly tried to make here.
In the time of our Founding Fathers -- the Age of Enlightenment -- metaphysical philosophy including theology, was considered to be the highest form of learning. Below metaphysics was mundane physics, and within the study of physics, science was simply a highly disciplined MEATHODOLY for learning about the natural world.
That's all science was (or should be). It was not a substitute religion, much less another form of metaphysics. And in the intellectual hierarchy of that time, it was considered BELOW metaphysics & theology.
And I argue, that's what science should be today -- simply an explanation for the NATURAL world. So, I say, let science be science -- but never confuse it with the higher forms of metaphysics, theology or your religion.