Scientists who do good work in many fields of science often suddenly experience blindness when it comes to evolution. The fact is that we can hardly even say what evolution is: we infer, reasonably, a high level process in deep time that we call ‘evolution’ and the inference is warranted as long as we don’t forget the scale of what we are ‘referring’ to, one should not say, ‘observing’, because an evolutionary process that can occur over millions of years over multiple regions is not directly observable in any sense that a creature with two eyes might claim. We have that problem with much simpler case of ‘complex’ phenomena, e.g. weather systems which we marginally observe in person but which are generally ‘observed’ via displaced fields of instrumentation that delivers data to a central hub which integrates that into format we can handle: we can in fact observe the reconstructed imaging of, say, a hurricane, but we don’t actually see that except in a computer model.
With evolution we confront a monster of data complexity, and it is a bit odd that too many rush to pronounce as science the most idiotic explanation for all of it, natural selection, to be the answer. Egad.
We should note that scientists are often poor at thinking through problems: they have a crutch: a mathematical model, and if they follow the model they get answers, without thinking. The process of creating those models as foundations of a given field, e.g. electromagnetism, is another matter.