Please explain why saying “that’s a subjective opinion” is any reason whatever to think the opinion is wrong. If you want to argue against it, then do so. As it stands, it is a subjective opinion that is shared by the vast majority of humanity, which is at least something in its favor. If you have an argument that shows it is mistaken, then present it.
You are correct that “science” does not hold (contain?) such a view (concept?), and that theology does (though ethics does also). So what? If science were able to show that there is nothing special (significant, valuable, important, etc.) about life in general, and human life in particular, then we would have a conflict. But science doesn’t weigh in on those things, so we don’t have a conflict there either. Remember that you are arguing for an incompatible relationship between science and theology.
I assure you that I’m not forgetting anything about natural history. The way you cite the “arduous path” to humans indicates that you regard it as an instance of the problem of evil: If God exists, He would create us in a jiffy. But we weren’t created in a jiffy. Therefore, God does not exist. I understand you to be endorsing that argument. Is that right?