Wagner's MBA Law of Anti-Science

Wagner's MBA Law of Anti-Science: The so-called "Pro-Science" advocates are less scientific and more religious in their reasoning than the so-called "Anti-Science" advocates. I'm trying understand the term "anti-science"... Imagine that I'm reading though my latest issue of any of the social psychology journals on this list... and I think the literature review is too limited on one article... then I find another journal article that describes interesting results but they didn't perform a somewhat obvious statistical test. Still, another journal article takes a theoretical approach with which I don't agree. Hence, the question... if I find shortcomings in the data collection, research methods or conclusions of certain journal articles, and I can articulate my specific objection I am "correct," in my opinion, and I have specific evidence to support my conjectures. Am I being anti-science by being "correct" in my objections? No. Am I being pro-science by being "correct" in my objections? Yes. So when I criticize unsupported theories (in my opinion) about the origins of the Universe, the Earth, or the Origin of Life, am I being anti-science? No. Being "correct" with qualifications is a specific condition that is clearly distinguishable from being "incorrect." That is, "correct" is noticeably different from "incorrect." Hence, I am not being "Anti-science" by pointing out obvious flaws in conclusions obtained from non-empirical investigations of theories. So if DNA strands that are so necessary for the primary life process of cell division came from inorganic chemical soup at the dawn of time, offer some supporting evidence... OK? Otherwise, quit your belly-aching!