Oh please. Medicine is hardly self-sacrifice, even if it is difficult. And any ridicule is not directed at the medical career, but at ideas that, if implemented across the profession, would have it stagnate. I suppose a general practioner has no requirement for understanding science, but research would come to a screeching halt without a guiding paradigm.
Natural selection occurs as does random mutations and these are factors in biodiversity and anyone who argues otherwise is foolish.
And if one believes that it is possible for all biodivesity to have occurred via random chance from a single instance of life forming by random chance, and seeks evidence backing up his theory, nobody should stop him.
But if one believes otherwise that doesn't make him illogical or anti-science or a believer in magic. I'd argue that a good scientist would express honest skepticism of the theory -- without rejecting it out of hand, of course.
Some argue that if one expresses skepticism or rejects absolute randomness, one is resorting to "God did it" and forfeits any claim to science.
Once science was predicated on the belief that God did do it and the job of the scientist was to find out how. If God did do it, saying so is a much better model of reality than one claiming all exists by accident.
You have no clue . . .