Scientific theories have no requirement (no possibility) whatever to be metaphysically true, since they all must be falsifiable in order to be scientific.
Metaphysics cannot be falsifiable. Metaphysics can only be true, or false.
Any metaphysics without God is an appalling absurdity, which is where the difficulty lies.
If science "jumps the fence" and begins to assert its various hypotheses as metaphysical certainties, we notice that the resultant metaphysics will certainly be absurd and false.
"Something from nothing" is very big just now in cosmology as well as quantum physics, as in the "eternally inflating multiverse" proceeding from the "energy of empty space that isn't zero" (the nothing turns out to contain something= contradiction=metaphysical falsification).
Materialist, naturalist metaphysics are always absurd.
They have to be. No metaphysics can be true which denies the fundamental ground of being itself: God.
For example, quantum physics makes absurdly accurate measurements based on a scientific hypothesis, stated here by David Bohm:
"the world is assumed to be constituted of a set of separately existent, indivisible and unchangeable 'elementary particles', which are the fundamental 'building blocks' of the entire universe...."
This is fine, let science hypothesize its world of particles. I like cell phones. I like computers.
But Bohm continues:
"...there seems to be an unshakable faith among physicists that either such particles, or some other kind yet to be discovered, will eventually make possible a complete and coherent explanation of everything".
Now we have metaphysics, not science. The key words above are "faith", and "complete and coherent explanation of everything".
There will never be a complete and coherent explanation of everything based on fundamental particles as the ground of being.
This is because such an idea is a metaphysical absurdity.
Metaphysics without God is an absurdity, always and everywhere.
So, what about evolution?
Once we see evolution ceasing to allow itself to be experimentally falsifiable- exactly as we do in fact see in the case of refusing to C14 date Mary's Bones- we know that it has ceased to be a scientific theory (if it ever was- I still can't tell for sure on that point yet) and has begun to proceed as a metaphysical research program.
As metaphysics, evolution is an absurdity.
So it is crucial to establish whether evolution claims for itself the status of science; that is, just the best collection of notions which can usefully yield predictions, always subject to experimental falsification- or whether it is metaphysics; that is, a claim about being as being.
I think the thread linked here shows very strong evidence that evolution is now a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program.
It should be assessed on those grounds.
The assessment will not be kind, because the metaphysics will be absurd.
But that will be addressed in Mary's Bones Part V.
UPDATE 2/12: I have sifted through all of the counter-arguments to H1 and am presented with one that is strong. Read it here.
UPDATE 2/12: I have answered the above argument here. I consider the refutation to be conclusive.
NOTE: "H1" in the linked post refers to my "Hypothesis #1":
H1: The Darwinian theory is a metaphysical, not a scientific, research program