The scientific method is difficult to practice in a field that depends on using historical data as empirical evidence.

Sure. I agree it's difficult to test models.

One of the fundamental functions of an economy is to efficiently and equitably (not in the socialist, "everyone gets equal pay" sense, but in the capitalist "everyone gets justly compensated for their contribution" sense) distribute the wealth that is created through economic activity.

Many people disagree with your opinion.

Nobody is disputing the fact that worker productivity has gone through the roof over the past several decades, and nobody is disputing the fact that real worker wages have dropped over the past several decades. In any other field, this would cause everyone studying it to say "holy shit, there's something wrong with the system, what is it, and how do we fix it?". But in economics, half the field looks at the clearly negative trend and shrugs and says "free market, whatever happens is the best possible outcome!". It reminds me of Pangloss from Candide, "Whatever happens is for the best, no matter what!".

It's pretty well established in economic thought that inequality is rising because we have terrible policy. You claim that half the field supports the free market no matter what, but that's untrue. You're watching too much TV news. Most economists do not have such a naive view of the free market.

The dogmatic adherence to religious ideology is striking, and honestly degrades the integrity and respectability of this field significantly.

Many economists disagree with Milton Friedman. You lack familiarity with mainstream economic thought, and are assuming all economists think in the same way. So of course it appears to you that economists are nearly religious ideologues, but that's mainly the product of your own assumption.