Science is not an absolute truth, it is a paradigmatic process of discovery. Plus the scientific method is not meant to lead to dogmatic assertions by which all other claims must be subjugated or even eliminated, although that is often how people perceive it.
Believe it or not, evolution is still a theory, not a proven fact. Many issues in the field of molecular biology must be solved before anything more on the mechanisms of evolution can be understood (or as of yet even identified). Anthropological observations and paleontological discoveries are used to develop speculative hypotheses that cannot possibly be reproduced in controlled environments. Evolutionary theories (there are actually several) are attempts to contruct explanations of the evidence, a kind of best educated guess. The real frontier for research into evolution lies in the field of genetics, not digging up more bones of prehistoric creatures.
Simple views on evolution happen to be the en vogue understandings in our culture in North America and Europe, and it is indeed a disservice to evolutionary theory and to Darwin's own intentions when people try to squelch other attempts to explain the same evidence. A good theory is meant to challenge others to develop better support for its central tenets or find alternative theories that provide better explanations, not just make an inquisitional decree that all must bow down to it or be declared unclean and reprobate.
So, it is important to be aware of the innate tendency of people (even scientist themselves, and even the most brilliant ones) to misuse science for imposing their own philosophical biases on others. This is scientism, not science. Of course, the discoveries of science are fair game for use in supporting one's own philosophical beliefs, but this means being open to discussion and debate, and relying on means other than science (such as logic, phenomena, metaphysics, etc) to advocate for a particular truth assertion.