Nope, that's not a scientific truth, and nope, that's not what evolution says.
You know, it's usually a good idea to learn about something before you crticize it.
So evolution says that religion is not "truth" at all, apart from moral/ethical teachings traditionally couched in "mythical" or "parabolic" language. Does that sum it up?
Say, why don't we turn to science for ethical and moral truth as well? Since G-d is a myth and we need some sort of objective standard (to prevent all our ethical beliefs being mere individual hang-ups or subjective societal toboos. I'm sure you can find truth in a test tube somewhere.
You know, it's usually a good idea to learn about something before you crticize it.
I know that "evolution" is said to be irreconcilable with "intelligent design" (which is mere theistic evolution with direct Divine interference) but not with a purely naturalistic mechanism guided providentially. Personally, I don't see the difference.
I also note that (at least according to most evolutionist apologists) while evolution cannot co-exist with Genesis, it doesn't seem to contradict any other "miracle" of the Bible (the parting of the Red Sea, the resurrection of various dead people, donkeys talking, etc.). Some of your own fellows on this forum are very loud about evolution not contradicting anything in religion other than the creation account of Genesis. But if you're going to grant the possibility of talking donkeys, how can you insist on a naturalistic origin?
I also know that it is a violation of logic to insist that the coming-to-be of the universe followed laws that did not exist until the universe had come into being. But then, if you're going to give us "Providential design" and every other miracle outside Genesis 1-10, what are you complaining about?