@Dredge. The surest sign that you're reading the opinion of a fanatic is ridicule without correction. A worthy critic does not simply declare error; he goes further to propose what he believes the truth is, instead. When a critic does not do this, it's usually because the alternative he favors is less supportable than the opinion which he is criticizing.
Whenever someone begins criticizing something I've said with pure vitriol, ridicule, and smear, I begin my reply to him by saying that I appreciate criticism provided that it has merit. And in order for a criticism to have merit, it must regard a specific idea that I expressed through my writing. I ask that my critic (1) quote my statements by which that idea was expressed, (2) tell me why he thinks that the idea is incorrect, and (3) tell me what he believes the truth is, instead.
The theory of natural evolution, biological evolution in particular, didn't spring upon science in an
a priori way. Scientists were led to it by the evidence that they found by examining the natural world. Slowly, with some mistakes along the way, which errors were gradually found and corrected, the process of biological evolution, with its mutations and its natural selection, became clear.
Data
first.
Then theory. That's how science works.
It is not, however, how religion works.
Religion begins with the conclusion and then contrives a voluminous body of theological writing that sets observational evidence in a role subordinate to the original metaphysical theory. It begins by declaring, without evidence, that one or more gods exist, and then it further declares that the existence of its particular god or set of gods is non-falsifiable, meaning that no matter what is found in nature, it must be interpreted in a way that supports the original dogmatic statement.
Most religions have silly metaphysics and very bad epistemology. Furthermore, there are many religions, each of them having important doctrinal conflicts with all of the others. Relying on faith as one's method for seeking truth is risky (at best), as faith is a circular argument and is, thus, invalid.
The essential question here is this:
How do you know when you have discovered a method for seeking the truth that actually does succeed in finding it?
You know that your method for seeking truth works when it can, really can, cause a light to spring forth and banish darkness. When it can, really can, heal the sick. When it can reveal what would otherwise have gone unnoticed because of distance, or smallness, or for some other reason. When it can enable people to communicate rapidly across thousands, or even millions, of miles.
In summary:
You know that your method for seeking truth works when it has a history of giving to people powers that they did not have before.
Valid methods for seeking truth do that because useful truths are a subset of all truths, and it is a subset in which people have a particular interest and to which they devote a considerable amount of their time. Any efficacious method for seeking truth, used by humans, will uncover useful truths over time. Those truths, when put to their uses, will make people generally more able, more powerful, versus the challenges that they face in life.
Thus, for example, the flashlight, which when turned on can enable a person with normally functioning eyes to safely travel through a cluttered room that would otherwise be completely dark and unsafe to walk around in.
... although it might be better classified as Fantasy.