folks with an ax to grind, and folks without the scientific training or technical background required to competently evaluate the sciences.
& the tens of thousands of PhD scientists.
How about all of us together dig into all the thousands and thousands of PHD thesis on all the floors of all the libraries that you appeal too, and see how just many should be tossed out because they are now obsolete at the least, and essentially worthless because they were based to varying degrees on past works. Works in which those in turn were built on evidences that later turned out to be fraud fabrication, misinterpretation, wishful thinking, and so on.
I hardly came from a religious family, and my doubts as to evolution came entirley on my own during a time when it was ‘settled science’. A few years later I was at the Chicago museum walking through the entire evolution series of exhibits. And not only looking, but reading too. I I came along the ‘Java Man’, and there in tiny writing I read that Dubious had not released those fragments to the science world for over 60 years, and there were other similar little indicators about each exhibit.
A few years later at various University's, I actually did read 40 or 50 of these PHD thesis from various individuals, and a pattern emerged. I saw how unoriginal most of their works were, and it was based on other works, works later shown to be false and quietly shelved away.
When a person actually takes a look at it evolutionary thought, it breaks down fairly fast.
Not sure how quickly your thought breaks down, but my mileage varies considerably.
I studied fossil man, human osteology, and evolution as half of my grad school program for six years, and included those subjects on my Ph.D. exams.
Based on my studies then and since, I very much disagree with your conclusions. If you are trashing science because it is improving all the time, I don't have any sympathy for your position.
When science comes up with better answers than it previously had, it adapts and moves on.
What would you prefer, that science pretend to be inerrant and unchanging, such as many religions do? What would happen then when evidence comes along to suggest that the "inerrant and unchanging" is wrong? That is just what happened with flood geology, with the last major holdout in the scientific community capitulating on February 18, 1831. The sciences have provided little to no support for creationists' beliefs ever since. This has caused creationists to increasingly take a hostile, though generally unstudied, view of science.
Unfortunately, many religious practitioners, particularly those involved with creation "science," seem to think that they are qualified to judge science based solely on their religious beliefs. Sorry, science doesn't work that way. You have to bring evidence!