You don't understand that the 'science community' is absolutely committed to the concept of naturalism and the impact of this commitment on the interpretation of observations.
The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes. They have no other choice.
"Or is it just your opinion, your awe at the complexity of things, minus any actual scientific falsification?"
I love it when the naturalists trot out the 'incredulity' argument. It makes such a nice backdrop for their own credulity in believing that the 'awesome complexity of things' just happened for no reason whatsoever.
Maybe that's why they call them the natural sciences? Without this concept, we wouldn't have evolutionary theory, we'd have a hundred competing creation myths, each one with as much objective justification as the other, as they all rely on their god for the answer.
The problem is that by the very concept it is impossible to falsify theological explanations, and science depends on the concept of falsification. Falsification is how science rids itself of theories that cannot support themselves.
Science is a brutal dog-eat-dog world where new scientific ideas are normally viciously attacked. Don't be surprised when your non-scientific ideas receive at least the same treatment.
The commitment to naturalism means that the 'science community' will *always* interpret *any* evidence as having risen through 'natural' processes.
Or, as in the case of Darwin and others, know what they can show objectively and learn to separate that from personal theological speculation, which is beyond any possible falsification.
'awesome complexity of things'
"Awesome complexity" is a personal point of view, and therefore has no place in science.