Doubting any "scientific consensus"- Why it is OK

In any debate about the theory of evolution someone always brings up "Well the vast majority of scientists accept it." But what is wrong with that?

First science is NOT a "majority rule" issue. Science is about reality and reality only. And reality does not heed to the majority.

Secondly if that alleged majority had some actual scientific data to support their PoV, they should be able to use it to beat back anyone who dissents. This is not the case with the theory of evolution. When debating the ToE, always and without fail, someone will bring up variations within a population in an effort to demonstrate that all of the diversity of living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population of single-celled organisms.

To me that is like showing me an automobile and saying "That is how we can go to the Moon." IOW the extrapolation is NOT warranted. But that is all the ToE is- unwarranted extrapolations which are entirely based on one's worldview.

And guess what? That is NOT how science should be conducted.

So yes, until any scientist can actually demonstrate the premise they support, it would be a good thing to doubt them.