That's what I thought at first, but after reading the description of the publication in question, it isn't really a science publication. It's more of an op-ed specifically designed to promote things that are definitely not science in a manner that makes them look like they are.

No, science is not about randomly questioning whatever. You need to bring evidence that is hopefully not only convincing but also reproducible and verifiable. Good science makes new predictions that could be tested to see if claims are correct or not. People who argue against evolution or climate change often talks from their behind without any new discovery, evidence, original research, testable predictions or new facts. They have no regards for any reproducibility or verifiability of their claims. That's when we call it politics, not science.