OK, I agree with you there. It is very well possible that some people who draw a conclusion on a specific subject may not have knowledge (yet) of all the facts, and draw the wrong conclusion.
I'll add to that that sometimes people refuse to investigate or acknowledge facts they have knowledge about.
In your example, the detectives might skip checking the video footage from the restaurant, and thus withhold themselves from knowing the fact the guy was eating a hotdog there. Or the suspect guy's wife found a bloody shirt in the laundry, but doesn't report it to the police because she just can't believe her husband is or might be a killer. She explains away the fact of the bloody shirt because she has an emotional block stopping her from adding that fact to her knowledge, or to the combined knowledge of all people including the detectives.
Following my question for you is, which of the two groups below are likely to have access to and less emotional blocks regarding the theory of evolution:
- The many thousands of scientists each diligently researching the facts in their relevant field of expertise. Many of these scientists believe in God, and have no problem accepting the facts they find regarding evolution. These scientists have published millions of scientific papers so others could scrutinize the conclusions in said papers, and expand on each others discoveries and knowledge.
- The (mostly non-educated) people who have very strong beliefs (including 'evolution is not true'), whose entire belief system and life would collapse if they accepted evolution to be true. These people have never presented a peer reviewed paper that supports their world view.
(Note that accepting evolution has nothing to do with rejecting any gods)
As for the possible (non)existence of any gods: we'll presume innocence until proven guilty. Thus, until any gods' existence is proven at least somewhat beyond reasonable doubt, we must assume there are none.