Not sure I'm either a geek or an old fart, but I do believe in science as a impulse for human progress. Until we have a better falsifiable theory, I'll stick with evolution, thank you.
Well some of us here might be professionally trained scientists.
What popular science books tell you have the following fundamental flaw: they are usually literalist and dogmatic interpretations of data. Or are usually taken in literal sense by readers.
May I recommend understanding two different well known philosophy of science perspectives.
First, is traditional Karl Popper. A scientific theory musy be falsifiable. If it isn't then it isn't. This is the issue with many economic theories and evolutionary theories. Ideas, maybe useful and illuminating, up to a point, but non scientific nevertheless.
In common with religious doctrine, the theory of evolution starts off not be trying to understand a phenomenon on its own, but by trying to resort to any explanation in terms of evolution no matter how implausible. Many popular expositions like "the sefish gene" are just trivial, misplaced and unhelpful.
The other philosophy of science is "The structure of scientific resolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, a celebrated classic from around 1960. Kuhn says it is not logic but social acceptance that makes theories acceptable. "Paradigm shifts" occcur not because logic refutes an older theory but that over a generation or more, strict adherence to it becomes . The older resistant generation is ultimately just replaced by those who see more value in looking at things from a different perspective.
When I first read it as an undergraduate in the US, I neither liked nor found it comforting. But I was 20, and had not spent a lifetime thinking and carrying out research.
While often held out as competing theories of science, I think both Popper and Kuhn are actually complementary.
I cannot write 20 pages here, but briefly there are many specific issues with many "soft science" theories like evolution. Some are the absence of sn energy principle, mathematical implausibility of very rapid change in terms of antibiotic resistance, and failure to address various anamolies. If you read any of Dawkins for example, you will find that he responds to any specific criticism or critique with remarkably vague responses, but aimed at counter insult. He gets personal and insulting, and eschews the actual issue.
This is not the manner of true science. True scientists are not driven by desire to defend a theory for its own sake, but by a desire to understand foremost.
The second issue with evolution is higher level. It is tautological by definition. Just like Voltaire's character Dr Pangloss in "Candide" who explained every phenomenon witnessed as driven by God, remarkably the self indulgent evolutionary theorists do exactly the same. Why is something the way it is you ask them, and they refer to evolution. Some explanation is made up.
Recently, a group of linguists, led by the indomitable Noam Chomsky, have concluded that after 40 years of research they have no idea why human language exists. It remains a complete mystery, and is not shared by any other species.
Now this is a more scientific and honest approach.
As Richard Feynman, a true scientist, said "I would rather live with uncertainty than have answers which are wrong." To me that is the essence of science.
There are no ultimate explanations anyway. Even those who think that mathemstical proofs in pure mathematics existx need to think again. Rather more is true of science.
I aooreciate though that given the choice between feeling smart and scientific, or daft and stupid, the lure of believing in evolutionary theory, peddled as science, is very strong. People's desire to feel smart is higher than their actual curiosity.
Here is a prediction (and I have made 2 predictions in last 20 years that were hugely unfashionable but were borne out):
Within 20 years, and possibly 10, a generation of scientists will emerge that will articulate for the popular layman why there are serious holes in the supposed theory, and why for sake of progress one must not let oneself be shackled by it.
