Just one comment (its late and I haven't shaved). You noted that: It is not logical to say that if some science is successful, then the scientific method is always equal. Assumptions used to advance science are different in different fields, and some assumptions may be more valid than others.
Either the scientific method works, or it does not. Assumptions (hypotheses) are a part of that method, not the method itself. You seem to have confused the two.
Good or bad assumptions (like good or bad theories) can be weeded out through time.
You seem to be saying that you feel there is a problem with the evolution side of science.
I think, however, that saying we got from single simple cells to where we are today by random mutation and natural selection alone are like punting on the first down of a football game. In the historical context, it does not seem to explain the increasing complexity or large changes but rather seems to just be a bow to naturalism.
Do you have any evidence here? Or is it just a feeling? There are a great many evolutionary biologists and other scientists who feel this hypothesis is on the right track. It is one thing to criticize the results of a field of study, but to be taken seriously you have to have some logical argument or evidence.
As I said, its late and I haven't shaved. I will be leaving the thread for the evening, but will check back in the morning for your reply.