> Where do you get these ideas? Science is not about credentials, it is about evidence.

Is it your assertion that science is not at all about scientists? The vast majority of scientists have serious credentials, and, in fact virtually all job openings for scientists require these credentials.

As for Einstein, he had a PhD at the time that four of his Annus Mirabilis papers were published, though it is not that uncommon for PhD students to also have papers published. In science fields these days, however, their professors would typically be coauthors, whether they actually had anything to do with the research or not. There are, of course exceptions.

As for science not being about credentials, of course it is not about them. Credentials are just one of the many tools that are used for getting the job done.

> Prove me wrong. Identify a truth that science has uncovered.

It is oh so easy to prove you wrong! Here I go: In five seconds when I drop this pen, it will fall from my fingers to the ground. I can even accurately predict the velocity with which it will hit the ground, and the amount of heat that will be produced as a consequence. Here I go....

There I was correct. Science gave me a truth. There are millions more where that came from.

As for evolution, yes evolution is true. Just because I can't prove something to a logical certainty does not make it not true. In fact, that's just Philosophy 101. Knowledge does not require provability; it only requires justified true belief.

(There are some caveats with "justified true belief", but I'm sure that philosophers will have that worked out sometime in the next few millennia. In the meantime, that definition of knowledge works well enough for me and for all the scientists that I've chatted with about the subject.)

As to there still being details to be worked out, that doesn't detract from trueness. If I have a clock and I say that it correctly tells the time within plus or minus one minute, if the clock does live up to that claim, then my theory that I can use it to measure time is true. With that theory, and my working clock, I will always know the time plus or minus one minute. None of this contradicts the fact that I might desire to own a clock that will tell me the correct time, plus or minus 30 seconds, or 10 seconds, or 10 milliseconds, or 10 microseconds.

Better theories and better equipment allow me to produce more precise facts. Less precise facts are still facts.

Edit: I will admit that one might typically not use the word "true" to describe a theory, which is a model, except for ones that we have extreme confidence in, such as gravity, QM, and evolution. If we do use the term "true" for theories of lesser confidence, then we are using the term "true" in the sense of a true compass rather than a true proposition. We might more typically use the term "accurate". But an accurate theory is "accurate" specifically because it produces true propositions with high reliability.

Additionally, we can also rephrase any accurate theory to be a true proposition by stating it something like so: "We will be using a scientific model, which we will describe as follows: .... This model lets us make predictions with an accuracy given by the following statistics, and the following caveats: ....