The anti-authoritarian philosopher Karl Popper argued against the very idea of ultimate sources of knowledge - all knowledge is human, he said, and all of it is open to criticism. Those who adhere to a religion are required to believe their gods and prophets are real and true. Scientists must pursue truth, but we must also know that we can never quite touch it - we must settle for approximation and corroboration because there is no absolute proof. We can tell when something must be false, but not when it is true - this asymmetry gives science its most basic strength. Still, there is one assumption scientists must make (though we could be wrong): objective reality exists. Without this assumption science would be pointless.
The views of science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but they are very different. Every assertion in science must be open to empirical testing, though the tests are often indirect. In science, evidence can"t be ignored, and there is a huge amount of evidence that corroborates the occurrence of evolution, even if we still don"t know how it happens. There are many creation myths, and the assumed importance of natural selection is also rather mythical, but there is plenty of evidence for evolution itself.
Given objective reality and appropriate conditions, scientists have noticed that certain events occur over and over. We assume the laws of nature cause these recurring events, and we base theories and hypotheses on these laws. Our knowledge of the laws themselves and the theories based upon them are all "soft" assumptions and are subject to change. The one "hard" assumption is of a reality that would exist with or without us. The tree falling in the forest makes a sound, even when there are no ears to hear it.