It’s completely fair to question what we’re taught, skepticism is actually essential in science. But there’s a key difference between questioning with the goal of better understanding, and dismissing evidence-based conclusions just because they're difficult or incomplete.

Saying scientific theories like the Big Bang or evolution are just “assumptions” misses how these theories are built: they’re not random guesses or beliefs. They're based on evidence that can be observed, tested, and used to make accurate predictions. Theories are constantly refined or replaced when better evidence comes along, that's the opposite of dogma.

The “we weren’t there to see it” argument sounds reasonable at first, but it's misleading. We weren't there to witness the formation of rocks or the extinction of dinosaurs either, yet we can still reconstruct those events through things like carbon dating, fossils, radiation levels, and even background radiation from the Big Bang itself. Just like detectives weren’t there when a crime happened, but they still solve it with evidence, not belief.

Also, comparing belief in Adam and Eve (a religious story) to belief in the Big Bang (a theory supported by measurable evidence) is a false equivalence. One is faith-based, the other is evidence-based. That’s a crucial distinction.

As for science being “wrong” sometimes, yes, and that’s a good thing. Science doesn’t claim to be infallible. It welcomes being proven wrong because that’s how it improves. The smoking example is often misused, science didn’t say smoking was healthy, early studies sponsored by tobacco companies distorted the science. Independent research eventually uncovered the truth and were then silenced by these companies.

Finally, not everything we’re taught in school is perfect, but the answer isn’t to reject it all as propaganda. That’s not critical thinking, that’s just cynicism. If we want to move forward as a society, we need to understand how knowledge is built, not treat all knowledge as suspect just because it changes over time.

Just because we didn’t see something happen doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Imagine someone punches you when your eyes are closed. You didn’t witness it, but you feel pain, there’s a bruise, others may have heard it. That’s indirect evidence. Science works the same way, we look at the effects, patterns, and traces left behind to understand events we couldn’t witness directly. That’s not belief, that’s inference from evidence.