: Everyone of us could even chose our own scientist to testified what they feel confortable to believe in.
That depends on the subject and the qualifications of the scientist. Sure, you can find someone with, say, a degree in theoretical physics to testify that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You can find 'scientists' who believe in psychic phenomena. You can find 'scientists' who will testify that crop circles are made by aliens, that UFOs are manned by little green men and even ones who'll claim that Jehovah's Witnesses have the truth.
Science doesn't depend on the testimony of scientists. It depends on the facts, and on the long term interpretation of those facts by the world community of scientists. That's what makes science as a whole self-correcting. Any scientist can be wrong about any specific thing, but because in the long run you have a lot of people checking up on one another, mistaken interpretations (ones that don't hold up under scrutiny) get weeded out and are no longer held to.
Evolution has stood the test of time quite well. There is absolutely massive evidence, in the fossil record, that life has evolved. What is still an unresolved question is the exact mechanisms by which life evolved. There are many ideas, most of which can't be solidly proved, but which make sense. Undoubtedly new proposals for mechanisms will come along. Note that I'm not eliminating the notion that "God did it", although if "God" did indeed "do it", it raises an awful lot of unpleasant questions about "God".