Here is an excellent website on evolution and its history The Museum of Paleontology at University of California Berkeley publishes the website. Because it is partially funded by a National Science Foundation grant, a California couple has filed a lawsuit claiming it violates the separation clause in the U. S. Constitution. Their primary objection seems to be that the website presents evolution as "true".
Over the years, I've come to understand that words like "true" and "fact" mean something different to scientists than they do to philosophers or the general public.
To most of us, to say something is true is to say that it is a correct statement in some universal and enduring way: absolutely true. Facts are absolutely true. (Of course, one can assert that something is a fact or is true and be wrong; but if something actually is true then it is and always has been true in some absolute fashion.)
To the scientist, truth and fact are always relative to evidence. To say that something is true is not to say that it is absolutely now and forever true, but only that it is without valid question the best interpretation of the available evidence. On the other hand, in the scientific world more evidence is always forthcoming, which means valid questions are always—always—a future possibility.
Scientific truth is never absolute. When a scientist says something is true she or he takes for granted the proviso: "based on our current best knowledge and understanding". In the world of science, something granted as a "fact" today can not be guaranteed facthood tomorrow—though of course with many "scientific facts" one can project their factuality forward with great confidence.
Furthermore, science doesn't assume that there is an underlying grid of "basic facts" which scientists will gradually discover. Science is agnostic to whether such "absolutely basic" facts exist or not.
If there is an underlying grid of ultimate facts—a blueprint substrate of existence—then eventually the scientific enterprise will bump against it and achieve completion. Science as an endeavor will come to an end. The scientific method, however, is not predicated on that happening: scientists will always strive to dig deeper, and presumably (if there really are ultimate facts) be frustrated in that effort.
If there is an ultimate substrate of basic facts of this sort, then I would say—speaking philosophically—that some sort of Deism/Theism is correct. If there is no such ultimate substrate, then I would say that atheism is correct.
In our lifetime, scientists are not likely to hit such a boundary. Theism/Deism makes the claim that such a boundary must exist, and that science therefore at some point should bump into it. Atheism makes the opposite claim, that the boundary does not exist and therefore science can never bump into it. (Atheists admit, however, that there are practical limits to scientific investigation; theists and deists may admit the same; the boundary we are talking about is not a practical boundary to scientific investigation but a factual boundary.)