Religion

You are reading that into what said if you are referring to my comment, which I hope you are not. Forgive me if I misunderstood.

This is a much deeper topic than that. There are scientists and philosophers who go into more depth on it and the answers are not cut and dried. Assuming that does a disservice and injustice to the realm of inquiry, especially when it is in the service of scientism and if you think that a statement like that is something that requires refutation based on a biased approach.

Superficial overviews of the methodology of science and its interpretations are just as prone to fallacy and bias as other forms of knowledge and when there is an agenda behind it, it becomes obvious that the idea of having a factual truth that disproves something with prejudice.

For instance, people can throw around Occam's Razor and disregard the fact that it was used as a valid "proof" that God created the Universe because it is the simplest answer, all things considered. It was a two-edged sword and more of a truism than a completely logical proof, but it is useful in some contexts.

Evolution is a theory. Science is not dogmatic, (or should not be essentially). The way that evolution should be expressed is that, so far, the information we have gathered makes the theory of evolution the most viable and provable one to date. Now, the reason for that is that science is not what is used as a sledgehammer in the common vernacular to pound down theists, etc., which is one of the things that distinguishes it from religious cosmologies, etc. Empirical science began as part of an anti-rational movement as you may know so to conflate it with the field of logic and reason is to miss the point or present it in a specious manner, again in order to prove a perspective rather than discover the truth of the matter. Evolution will hold unless or until there is a point where something possibly deeper or more comprehensive, (like emergence) either expands on it or transforms our understanding, hence science in not the dogma that practitioners of scientism utilize as a counterpoint to other ways of knowing or viewing realty.

I would add that skepticism is being misused, misunderstood and corrupted in the same way. I am a skeptic's skeptic and can't accept a close-minded stance that utilizes skepticism to promote biases about reality by way of a prejudice that skews the picture, aka, The Amazing Randi. Skepticism is simply a means of questioning validity and suspending judgement or belief in order to investigate what can be investigated, rather than a one-sided, disguised disbelief that rests on its own assumptions in order to disprove what it can't accept.

Even science itself has some issues and a crises that makes using it in certain ways concerning people's beliefs fallacious and disingenuous, to say the least, and it is rather dangerous, just like the people who promote science without really understanding what it is and what is for precisely and then inject philosophical interpretations as a means to form an anti-theological argument from a myopic point of view. So there is a related crises, you could say:

https://aeon.co/essays/post-empirical-science-is-an-oxymoron-and-it-is-dangerous

Now, I am open to hear about anyone's "certainty' here.