The notion of "Good science" is quite arbitrary. There are many scientists who question and reject neodarwinism, on scientific grounds. Whether science is good or not is dictated by one's worldview and a priori assumptions. Worldview determines everything. For example, a secular humanist does not believe in God, and will invariably believe in evolution because it is the only theory that fits his idea of a godless cosmos, that all of reality can be reduced to material forces, that human beings have no intrinsic value (which only comes from being created in God's image), and that all religion is superstitious nonsense.
Conversely, a creationist believes in God, and therefore in special creation, , and that God governs in the affairs of men (as our founding fathers declared over and over), andn that human beings are created in the image of God and therefore have special intrinsic value. This is very predictable simply based on one's first assumptions about God - and EVERYONE has a first assumption about God. One starts with a belief in God, and then forms all other beliefs. A materialist is an atheist first. A cretionist is a theist first. It's all about presuppositionsm, not science - and everyone has them. Everyone. Science is interpreted thru the lens of the worldview presuppositions.
No, it most definitely isn't. Sounds a lot like relativism, to me.
There are many scientists who question and reject neodarwinism, on scientific grounds.
As I pointed out before, the biological community is almost 100% unanimous in its support of evolutionary theory, because it empirically works to describe nature. No other scientific theory explains biodiversity and the fossil record. Dissenting voices among educated scientists are a very, very, very tiny minority indeed, and none of them have been able to produce any evidence against evolution that withstands even a little scientific scrutiny.
Whether science is good or not is dictated by one's worldview and a priori assumptions. Worldview determines everything.
Wrong. Whether science is "good" or not is dictated by its ability to create a consistent model to explain observations and its ability to predict observations that have not yet been made. Evolution has succeeded on these grounds. Creationism and intelligent design have failed. It's that simple.
For example, a secular humanist does not believe in God, and will invariably believe in evolution because it is the only theory that fits his idea of a godless cosmos...
Just because (almost) all of A believes in B, does not mean B implies a belief in A. Evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on secular humanism, and many religious people (including devout Christians) acknowledge that evolution is good science.
...that all of reality can be reduced to material forces, that human beings have no intrinsic value (which only comes from being created in God's image), and that all religion is superstitious nonsense.
Evolutionary theory says none of these things. You are either drawing false connections or repeating a mantra that has been passed on to you.
The rest of your comments, which are about religion, have nothing to do with evolution in one way or the other. A belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
The science behind evolution is on solid ground. This has been well supported by modern science, and you have provided no information that shows otherwise.