There is a difference between questioning from a point of view of contributing new information and questioning for the simple pleasure of disagreement. The first position is necessary for the development of science, the second is a hindrance.

When the "long established science" is evolutionary biology, and to a lesser extent the geology of the age of the Earth, some of the questioning is not done in a sincere scientific spirit and it is not a good use of time to always treat it as if it is.

>Questioning long established science is anything but heresy

By "questioning" do you mean claiming you are certain that established beliefs are wrong? In that case, you should first very carefully study the reasoning behind those beliefs.

Or do you mean saying "that seems to me wrong, but this is something I have not studied, so explain the reasoning to me"

To wit: “that is the essence of science is it not?”

My “heresy” exaggeration was directed toward those who might become emotionally charged at the suggestion that Hutton misinterpreted the evidence :-)

But that implies you were trying to provoke an "emotionally charged" response, which is generally slightly frowned on here on HN.

Nope. Trying to prevent such.