This. I think this is a key point that the general population doesn't understand. And it leads to debates like this. The debate itself is moot because the debate would be a non-issue if all sides understood this point.
This is a leap in logic.
Science has a lot of "we don't know" answers. They only really came to light in the 20th century however, after the enlightenment had already so thoroughly captured academia and philosophers in general there was no going back. The enlightenment had also already caused so much death, corruption (resulting in economic disasters) and severed heads, of course, that it was getting swiftly kicked out of government as well, and serious government funds were going to the restoration of the churches' position in society (that only partly worked because of the sheer numbers of clergy killed by said government). So a massive rift between academia and general society opened up, and I'd say it's still mostly there.
But after all the hubhub around enlightenment and the switchover of academia, ever more "we don't know" type answers kept coming in. But philosophers are famous for ignoring practicalities, whether we're talking ancient, medieval, renaissance, enlightenment or modern era philosophers. And thus the story that science has all the answers and that it isn't possible that scientific theories have serious shortcomings. In practice, I would say that scientific theories are merely "the best available" theory.
And of course, there's the little matter of these theories being used against religion. Big bang theory is rather important. But, let's compare inflation and the speed of light. That can't possibly be right ... (yes I know it explains another "bigger" inconsistency, but I think reasonable people should agree at a rather high cost). Evolution theory. Oops ... higher animals don't evolve through mutation. And the trend towards that evolution works, not on a species level but more on a group, or "group of groups" level. The trend that you can split the genes that are unique to humans in 2 groups : about 30% that come from known bacteria, and 70% we don't know where they came from, but they sure as hell did not come from mutation. And let's just not go anywhere near climate science, or you'll notice just how biased hacker news is, when, of course, there is legitimate criticism against climate science that could mean the whole thing is just simply wrong.
Now of course, most of these are interesting questions. So you have some criticism, great ! Let's do some research. But of course, part of the criticism comes from groups that want to push religion (and we're in the west, in the middle east it works entirely different) or government policies. Like in the middle ages and during the renaissance, science is an important source of government policies, and this of course means that politicians can't ignore universities or just leave them be.
The enlightenment is a great and horrible thing. It's the new religion. Can't go spoiling that with "we don't know".
Actually, the catholics do say, "we don't know" quite regularly. You can, of course, debate whether those questions are `popular'. Eg existence of aliens, splitting of souls for identical twins.
But you do this having a weak grasp on the very concepts for which you claim inconsistencies or inadequacies, sprinkled with a dash of anti-intellectual falsehoods/misinformation.
This is probably why you got downmodded, not that you didn't have a larger point with showing how common beliefs are common beliefs, whether they be from science, rhetoric, cultural tradition, or religion; and that media or governments (or other institutions representing the "will of the people") often color the inquiry that can ultimately shape and theoretically improve these commonly held beliefs.