Actually many folks just want it acknowledged that macroevolution is not the rock solid and proven law of nature some claim it to be. Not necessary to replace with another theory but even just mentioning there are alternatives that some believe would be an improvement.

How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.

You do realize that evolution can't be verified and proved? Macroevolution isn't reproducible testable science like newtonian physics or the germ theory of infection. A lot of these contrarians are just wanting that acknowledged rather than having Macroevolution presented as gospel truth.