“In scientific terms there’s no ‘truth’ in evolution because the word ‘truth’ is reserved for philosophy and religion.”
Is your above comment true?
Of course, strictly speaking science is all about just two things: observations (aka "facts") and explanations (aka "hypotheses").
If I see a UFO defying gravity that's an observation, but it does not become fact until it can be very carefully confirmed scientifically.
Explanations begin as brain-storming a list of potential explanations, followed by weeding out the impossible ones and stating others in the form of hypotheses.
A scientific hypothesis is a falsifiable explanation, so the next step is to attempt to falsify it.
Every failed attempt to falsify is called a confirmation and strongly confirmed hypotheses can be accepted as "theories".
Theories are sometimes combined to make what's called a "standard model".
And that's it!
That's all there is in science.
Notice what words are missing: "belief", "faith", "truth", "proof", "doctrine", "creed", "philosophy" -- none of that.
Strictly speaking, every confirmed theory, without exception, can still be falsified if or when new data or better explanations are confirmed.
And that happens all the time -- I've said most real scientists live in hope of someday finding a genuine confirmed anomaly, something which doesn't fit their standard model and may force a rethinking and new hypotheses.
For an example, consider Fred Hoyle's "steady state" cosmology which was thought viable when I was young.
But it's been falsified so many times that Big Bang now, so to speak: reigns supreme.
Still, once in a while you'll see a report of something which doesn't seem to fit the Big Bang model and we have to wonder then if old Fred Hoyle isn't laughing in his grave? ;-)
Point is: none of this is about "truth" or "belief" or "faith", etc.
Strictly speaking, science only accepts a particular theory temporarily, until something better is discovered.
Clear?