You can't really heap "science" together, and you did, and declared it rubbish. Good job.
You've talked about the flaws of "epidemiology" - studying what happens by analysing populations. Your image regarding cancer studies, show mostly that they are consistently too ambitious, and fail to isolate factors sufficiently.
You also confuse "scientific theory" and "scientific proof". Some fields work without any proofs! Most work with "scientific evidence" - much of which later turns out to not be of sufficient quality.
But fields like Mathematics or Computer Science work with both proof and theory. For example, IF we assume cryptography works THEN this is secure, and you can show that by symbolic manipulation.
And the field of Physics, so often accused of being a new religion, is merely theories that fit experiments. So: there is a theory about black holes, and what we've measured so far supports that theory. There's a theory about gravity, and what we've measured so far supports that theory. Etcetera.
The "this is the undeniable, unchanging, everlasting truth that cannot be denied"-part is either maths, or religion!
But science will be science, no matter how badly anyone understands it.
There is no universal way of doing science. Basically every point you made can be refuted here. I answered in other comments as well
I'm protected by an Inverse True Scotsman Fallacy - if it's not infallible, it's not scientific proof.
Science is all about finding out what we can, with what we've got.
And posting Lee Smolin's opinion on it, especially in this manner, is deceptive. Not informative.