Some people argue that all science is of the same value because it is treated with the same rigour. For example, to test a car brakes there may be an objective test, however this won't mean that all brakes are of the same performance.
In the same way people commit a sweeping generalisation when they argue that;
Science is treated with rigour through a method.
Evolution is science.
Therefore evolution is the same value as other theories because it is put through that rigor/method.
The true nature I would argue of science I shall call, "strong science", is that it has repeatably reproduced, identical results, as an induction (tally).
That is to say, if we put a rat in a sealed dome it will lose consciousness, so we deduce exotic air exists, and that the lungs can't just operate on any type of air. So then we deduce the result but then by induction, we can say that,
"of 500 tests rats lost consciousness, out of all of the rats in the universe given the same conditions."
But we know that under such conditions, even though the term "proof" can be argued pedantically, instead let us just say that our conclusion is strong, so as to avoid that semantics debate. So then we all know that it wouldn't matter if you performed the same test 10 trillion times, the result will always be the same.
This is always the same with strong science. They are pretty much 'proven' because you can deduce the result then repeatably test and create a huge tally showing the same result.
It can be shown with certain things, this is always the same type of science. We can deduce for example, that linear momentum will take over if we travel round a corner at a certain speed in a car, where the force of momentum will exceed the force of the traction and centre of gravity meaning the vehicle will spin out of flip out every time. We would immediately know something was funny if we saw a bus coming down the road at 100mph and then it took a tight corner at 100mph and took the corner nicely like a formula one car.
CONCLUSION: Basically we can't argue with strong science.
ARE SOME TYPES OF SCIENCE INHERENTLY WEAKER?
By their nature yes - historical science was introduced for Darwinism and long ages. By their nature they are usually some type of forensic reconstruction or argued inference which have been proven in the past to potentially be non-sequiturs rather than correct conclusions.
For example it was concluded Rhodocetus had a tail fluke and was ancestral to whales, but the finder of the organism later admitted it probably was a land animal for various anatomical reasons, proving that the type of forensic reconstruction for evolution, can be weak, especially with argued transitions.
There are types of forensic reconstruction which are strong, so again you can't conflate that type with the weak type, or that is unsophisticated thinking, because a strong reconstruction isn't the same as a weak one.
For example if we have many 100% complete skeletons for a species, and we reconstruct a skeleton that is 85% species X, that is a strong reconstruction. We can examine the anatomy and the conclusion is strong. But with transitionals of evolution, nobody can even know if they really were transitional and there are good reasons to believe they weren't, given the 99.9999999% conspicuously absent transitionals.
CONCLUSION; It's not as simplistic as evolutionists want to make out. They like to appeal to, "science" as though every theory and claim within science, because evaluated by scientists, is equally strong, equally proven. No, some things are so strong they basically are proven (angular momentum/ downforce, etc..) but some things are merely stories about the past which are basically propped up by circumstantial evidence, and they are argued as propositional inferences.
To put it in a more meaningful context, the chances of downforce existing have to be 99.999999%, and the chance of linear momentum existing must be 99.9999999% but really we all know they do exist, we have a reasonable knowledge they do so I only refrain from saying 100% because of technical pedantics, but to say the chances of evolving from slime, after an abiogenesis from mud, is an equal chance, because they are both science, is incredibly naive, and exceedingly poor reasoning based on generalisation fallacy. The chances for that, by any reasonable standard, would be closer to 0.0000000001%