Is truth or evidence more important in science and evolution?

I would second what Coyote says and add that science, in its mission to understand how things work, concerns itself as much with proving things false as it does with trying to prove them 'true' (ie correct).A scientific theory must be capable of being falsified - if it can't be, it isn't science. So you'll see that when a new idea (hypothesis) is published, the scientific community does its damnedest to prove it wrong. When a significant theory is proven to be wrong (or incomplete), the challenger is often awarded the highest plaudits available, including Nobel prizes.The falsifying process is the exact opposite of religious methodology which concerns itself with reinforcing its ideas through repetition and ritual and the shunning and persecution of ideas that differ from their own.And just for completeness, some parts of science can claim to have discovered real truths - mathematics is the best example. The angles in a triangle will always add to 180 degrees for example.

From reading your posts, I think you are using the word 'truth' to mean God - the one that showed himself to you and you have an 'emotional and mental' relationship with - is this the case?If so, then we're all talking at cross purposes as all science is seeking to do is to learn how the natural world works.