Possibly some believe this. But those who I have come across find macroevolution very hard to believe and have no qualms with small variations among "species". They say that there were different sets of creation which then something happened to one set(died out?) and another set was put in place. Also the fact that scientists admit themselves they have pretty much no idea how life first began. These are the two biggest issues of contention for most people.

A few other criticisms I've heard from people: - How many times have scientists claimed to be certain about something with their "evidence" and then switched their position at another time? I know this is seen as a plus to many but it's not an invalid concern. - Science cannot nor does it claim to be something one can use to acquire certainty about anything. You can't really prove anything with the scientific method. It's based on observation and induction(not mathematical) which are inherently flawed. - From the most basic interactions people have with science is food and medicine. We've seen how "great" GMO's have been and how many medicines have harmed people and have been taken off the shelves. It's not strange for someone to go to 5 different doctors with one set of symptoms and get 5 different diagnoses each with a different solution.

Before I'm attacked, I want to mention I am conveying what I've heard. Honestly, nobody will listen to you speak out of your emotions. A lot of people claim to be objective but then resort to name calling and exhibiting anger.

It's worth noting that people applying the Bible have claimed certainty about things and then reversed their position quote a lot, too (certain dates for the end of creation are the most dramatically obvious case, though there are certainly cases of other factual and moral beliefs drawn with supposed certainty from the Bible that have evolved over time, as well as examples of such beliefs where people claiming certainty based on the Bible have offered different answers to the same question at the same time.)

So the lack of consistent certainty is not a differentiator between science and the Bible.

>Science cannot nor does it claim to be something one can use to acquire certainty about anything

I have heard this too. Although I still fail to grasp how one can hold that view, which shows thought, critical thinking and analysis, then argue that a book written / made up / dictated too by God / added to / amended / edited over the last few thousand years is held up to be something that can gives us certain. Which is the complete opposite of the thinking they put forward with regards to science.

You seem to be confusing the degree of critical thinking that goes into making the original claims about science and the Bible with the critical thinking required to report what claims are made for each. The former differs between science and the Bible, the latter does not.

Interestingly the first sentence of your second paragraph is a plot point in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia ("Science is a liar ... sometimes") : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0