What you fail to see is the difference between "operational science" [that which is leading to technological advances today], and "origins science" [which describes the origin of the universe, and life]. Evolution has nothing to do with the former, and everything to do with the latter...and in the latter, your conclusions are based upon assumptions of things that you can neither prove, nor disprove.
You (or someone) have created two new terms for perfectly good ones that already exist, pure science, and applied science. You neglect that pure science has repeatedly led to applied science advances. In the case of the "origins science" of evolutionary biology, it has led to genetics and cures for genetic diseases. Applied science would not exist without pure science. Genesis, in fact, was Man's early attempt at pure science, they simply got it wrong because they didn't have the tools or scientific method required to get it right. Their mistake has had real word ramifications to this day (like this conversation).