I remember first encountering debates about evolution and chance during my college biology classes, where the theory was presented as a robust scientific framework open to question and revision. However, this article highlights a contrasting viewpoint expressed by a Nobel Prize-winning scientist who insists that evolution by chance is the only conceivable hypothesis, and that it will never be revised. This absolutist stance raises important questions about how science should operate—not as dogma, but as an evolving inquiry. Science thrives on skepticism and the willingness to revise theories in light of new evidence. The comparison to how Newton’s theories were eventually expanded by Einstein’s relativity is a perfect example. Scientific dogma, in contrast, can hinder progress by closing minds to alternative possibilities or interpretations. The concern here is that when scientific ideas become untouchable truths, they risk becoming akin to belief systems rather than investigations. My experience has also shown me that many people conflate science with certainty, sometimes even equating science with ultimate truth or ‘god.’ This can lead to the rejection of any spiritual or faith-based perspectives, as mentioned with hashtags like #Faith and #Christianity. Yet, real science acknowledges its limits and embraces humility. The assertion that "chance alone" is responsible for all creation overlooks the complexity of natural processes, where chance interacts with natural selection and environmental factors. Science as a method must remain open, continually testing and refining hypotheses rather than declaring finality. Reflecting on this, I find value in maintaining a balance between respect for scientific findings and openness to new evidence or perspectives. Whether in biology or any other field, science’s strength lies in its adaptability and readiness to be challenged. When science becomes a rigid doctrine, it risks shutting down the curiosity and critical thinking that drive discovery. Ultimately, this discussion reminds me to approach scientific claims—especially those that sound absolute—with a healthy skepticism and an appreciation for the ongoing journey of learning. It encourages thoughtful dialogue about how we integrate scientific knowledge with broader worldviews without idolizing any single perspective.