Nice set of loaded words there. Let us not forget that the modern evo have their own "philosophical chicanery" going on: they claim that all that exists is matter and that there is no God. While they don't know everything, they discount the possibility of something that is not unreasonably possible.
Let me expand. How did life occur? We don't know, but it can't be God. How did the universe begin? We don't know, but it can't be God. They have already rejected a definite possibility for rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.
There is no way science can proof or resume that ‘there is no god’.
In fact it is impossible to proof that angels, elfs or the like do not exist.
There are areas of incertainty and they are big.
But only because we don’t know jack about what things are in these areas it doesn’t mean on the other hand that there is a god.
Science doesn’t say ‘there is no God’ it just says - we don’t see him.
Jesus walked - perhaps - over the water. But there is a lot of indications, that makes it to hard to believe. We even have a better theory - one that has more logical connections to other observations and results of interpretations and is much harder to attack: The bible contains stuff, that is made up.
So why consider a second best theory ?