I've probably complained about it on here before but a specific thing about I-Fucking-Love-Science style 'science' cheerleading is that it leads to a lot of equating things we learned through or found a way to describe with, broadly, science as science itself. How animals evolved to fit specific niches or how the planets move and interact isn't 'science'. They would do those things without us and without us asking why
Grass would still appear to us as the color it is whether or not we have a word we use to signify green, or a series of references and studies that tell us how grass refracts light on that wavelength, and fancy ways of explaining what wavelengths, light, eyes, nerves, brains and thoughts are. Science, despite I think occasionally being called a philosophy, is a frame of reference, a series of methodologies, instructive tools. The way language makes generalizing quite simple means that it is easy to conflate explaining way something works with that explanation being the cause. The world works the way it does whether we have an explanation for it or not, and all too often the explanation is incomplete anyway.
