My belief is that real science must be anchored to common experience as interpreted by common sense - otherwise it stops being science.
For example, modern medical research, which includes its own (statistical, and bogus) evaluation criteria and rules out the validity of individual experience, has long-since failed to make breakthroughs and is becoming an active menace to human health and well-being.
So, science is (ought to be) validated in terms of obvious differences it makes in the real world.
The technical, professional science needs to be linked firmly to these obvious differences.
And this applies to all sciences - even physics.
String theory has destroyed the most rigorous of sciences, theoretical physics, by its lack of any anchor to common experience - lack of even the slenderest anchor.
A rigorous science can make do with a very slender anchor - but anchor there must be.
Without such science becomes merely bureaucracy - a social organization based on arbitrary rules and practices - mere peer review...
Natural selection is linked to a few obvious differences accessible to common experience, but mainly it serves as a professional research program by unifying biology.
But the professional structure must ultimately be linked back to common sense evaluations, which isn't happening.
Instead, natural selection is being used as a a philosophy of life; but as a philosophy of life, natural selection is very bad.