Some time ago, a brilliant book was written informing the public of details that seemed to prove that the improbability of a certain main scientific theory was WAYYYY higher than proponents of it would have us believe (They would have you believe not to question it). The author brought specific examples of biological complex systems, to show the certainty was in no way established, but instead that the details begged a near impossibility of the main theory being true.

("You got a lot of 'splainin to do, Lucy.")

Of course the dissenter* got dismissed, mischaracterized, and character assassinated. You know, because #ScienceAsReligion.

Fast forward to 2017, and an article giving a background intro to the theory, as a matter of informing the rest of the article. And we find the basics have INCORPORATED the uncertainty into the definition of the terms they use.

Basically, the fictional conversation below paraphrases things well:

"But how do you explain this problem that seems to put holes the size of canyons into the idea of near certainty of your theory??"
"Yeah, the improbability you point out is quite a quandary, so we'll just say the characteristic you're pointing out is part of our definition."**
"Okay... so can you take back all those nasty things you said about me?"
"I'll let you guess the answer on that one.")

*To be clear, there is no "dissenter" in pure science, so much as there is just a... fellow scientist bringing up data that suggests another look at the mainstream view.
**Though in real life they never gave him the credit. And they backdoored the improbability being built into the description and working definition.