Scientists can be wrong

By wrong I mean: they don't agree (and there is no way to determine who is right, or if anyone is right). Examples are, their opinions about: (1) what consciousness is, (2) the origins of the universe, and (3) the origin of life.

There are many disagreements among them with no way to prove who is right and who is wrong; these questions are simply outside the domain of science. The best you can do is think about possible stories of what might have happened and whether these are compatible with the evidence and with the mathematical theories of provable truths.

The same goes for those believing a false religion; they assume they are right, yet they are wrong. But they can't ever be right (except by accident) because they don't use genuine revelation from God, nor do they use the scientific method.

Whenever the experts (in science, these are the Ph.D.s) disagree, unless it is within the domain of experimentally provable truth, this is a good indication that they are just making things up. Two good examples, both unprovable: (1) consciousness is physical, and (2) wave function collapse results in many-worlds interpretation (MWI) multiple universes.

Such considerations are within the purview of philosophy, not science.

It's not that they can prove consciousness is physical; but rather, they merely assume it is because they reject a supernatural explanation.