The real science of evolution (i.e., paleontology and evolutionary biology) has an amazing wealth of evidence in the form of the fossil record, and there are basically zero viable alternatives to the hypothesis of evolution via natural selection when considering the history of life and its representation in the fossil record. It is also possible to do experiments on evolutionary science[1].
This is in stark contrast to anytime someone says that 'we should eat x because it's good for us because cavemen ate x', or worse yet, 'humans are good at pattern recognition because it helped our ancestors pick out lions in the grassland'. This is straight conjecture, and while it does occasionally come from the mouth of scientists, it's from psychologists studying human pattern recognition or something, not from anthropologists studying how pattern recognition developed in Australopithecus.
I think you're referring to the latter, or maybe you're confusing science with religion?
This is in stark contrast to anytime someone says that 'we should eat x because it's good for us because cavemen ate x', or worse yet, 'humans are good at pattern recognition because it helped our ancestors pick out lions in the grassland'. This is straight conjecture, and while it does occasionally come from the mouth of scientists, it's from psychologists studying human pattern recognition or something, not from anthropologists studying how pattern recognition developed in Australopithecus.
I think you're referring to the latter, or maybe you're confusing science with religion?
[1]: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVB1bInthelab.s...