I think that was what I was saying. Science is a technique to discern the physical world.
However, outside the physical world, too often the "scientific method" is used to distort reality to the ideology of the so called "scientist". Eugenics would be an example, as would much of what passes for "social science". Darwin, by deciding to frame his theory as an argument against the need for God, was being unscientific. Evolution itself goes against the law of entropy, implying there is something in evolution that pushes toward complexity. In the PC days of Darwin, they called this the "life force". I remember being taught cells had this magic "protoplasm" that allowed cells to divide. Now things are more complicated. Similarly, these bozos are arguing an evolutionary theory that has magical qualities versus an evolutinary theory that has theological qualities. This makes it a religious arguement.
And since it ignores the basic philosophical premises, it is a bad argument from a philosophical standpoint. Essentially it is an argument by one set of semi ignorant religious fundamentalist against a set of semi ignorant irreligious fundamentalists.
Ah, doc? That's just not true. All the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT) says about evolution is: Living organisms must eat to survive. This is because in order to keep the disorder at bay, they must move molecules around, and in order to move molecules around they must expend energy. This says nothing about evolution per se, and this doesn't make life or evolution impossible. It only implies that all living things must eat.