Your man has it all wrong, pete, and it's a well-worn and somewhat tired ploy to attempt to tarnish evolution science with a veneer of religion. The thing is this. Evolution science is predicated on the gathering of evidence (of which there are vast amounts thought still with plenty of entertaining gaps) which is then subjected to the process of reason. The evidence we require has a high bar to jump, the same as with any other scientific evidence. Religious belief is predicated on faith relying on the abandonment of reason. This is because the "evidence" put forward by religion (tradition, hearsay, witness, incomplete and contentious texts full of inconsistencies, teachings of elders, ritual...) fails to meet any of the stringent criteria that science demands. You can try to apply reason to your "evidence", but your conclusion can only be as strong as your weakest link - and that is your evidence. Reason applied to false evidence is reason misapplied. What happens is that religion then has to see certainty in the highly-improbable. The house is built on sand. Not wise, but if it works for you...