I’m certainly not anti-science. I have found many “scientific” disciplines to require more faith than my religion does. CAGW is one of the worst. It’s not even a religion. It’s a cult.You are right, evidence would be nice. However, neither "side" can probably cite exact timelines as to the beginning and end of various civilizations. As for Darwin, there isn't anywhere near enough "evidence," especially in the realm of fossil evidence of transitional species. Darwin's theory is just that. Only a theory, and if one took Darwin at his word, even he might be prone to say it was invalid. In later writings to acquaintances, he noted that if fossil evidence of transitional species could not be found and that if one could find evidence that the smallest of elements of the body could be found to be very complex, then his theory would be invalid.
To date, I don't think that there is any fossil evidence, even after almost 160 years of searching. And, the cell has been shown to be very complex, much of that learned since the discovery of DNA.
As for climate change, that has always gone on. However, the problem is that the proponents of "global warming" can't really prove that man is the largest contributing factor of that warming. In fact, with the discover of evidence of people in the "global warming" were "cooking the numbers," their arguments tend to be a bit weak.
Also, I don't think you will find that religious people are so much against science. I'm very religious and I enjoy studying science, although I am nowhere near being called a scientist. Like any good scientist would be, I am skeptical of some claims from those in the scientific world. I've even asked questions here on OSA that dealt with questioning science, and there were some that made claims that I just can't seem to find valid.