Yes, modern science has produced many wonderful tools and toys. If that were the purpose of life, then modern science would be my god.
And it certainly is not the purpose of life, and so science is certainly not your (or my) god. So? How is this relevant to the question, how should one treat the theory of biological evolution - as a valid scientific theory or as a fallacy/heresy/lie?
I certainly appreciate many practical aspects of modern science, though one must also consider the novel poisons and illnesses it has introduced, not to mention the means of devastation unparalleled in history. But as modern science journeys out from the practical and earthy, into cosmology, natural history, etc., its fundamental flaws become more apparent. Modern science seems to "work" so well because the standards by which we are assessing it are already worldly and low-minded. We would prefer an ideology that gives us rudimentary, earthly wealth over a science that gives us spiritual understanding.
I think you are narrowing the purpose of science too much. Basic science is actually not about any practical aspects. It is about finding out how the natural, material world works. Its main purpose is to make us, humans, better - more open-minded, more curious, more able to be amazed, to stand in awe, marveling at this huge, incredibly complex and yet so harmonious and organized and structured world. I am teaching biological disciplines, and each semester, as I lecture about, for example, the Krebs cycle or the electron transport chain in living cells, I find myself more and more in awe. I am amazed not only about how this teeny-tiny thing called mitochondrion is organized, but also about how several generations of people, scientists, kept digging, and digging, and digging - observing things, asking questions, formulating hypotheses, making predictions, testing them, - for several decades, between ~1910 and today, building a beautiful, comprehensive model of harvesting energy in cells. By the way, it is not even legitimate to ask, is this model "right" or "wrong," because, like every model, it is constantly, endlessly subject to challenge, modification, even dismissal. This whole process of building models of the natural world, "doing science," is, in fact, very spiritual. People who are far from science do not appreciate its spirituality; I, for example, heard a number of times that I must be a very earthly-minded man because I study these "yucky dirty stinking bacteria." But thse people are wrong, they just don't know what they are talking about. Science is incredibly spiritual and inspired, like any human pursuit where we, humans, rise above our basic daily needs of food, shelter, power over others, etc.
When I was little, I read in one Soviet sci-fi novel (by brothers Arkadiy and Boris Strugatskiy) that there are two ways of spelling the words "human being." As long as a human being says, "I want to eat" - it's "human being." But from the moment when the human being says, "I want to know" - it's a Human Being, with the capital H and capital B.
One American scientist (can't recall the name right now - he was a physicist, an experimenter who worked in the 1940-s - 1960-s) said that (I quote from memory) "basic science has nothing whatsoever to do with (military) defense. But science makes this world, our countries, the humanity worth defending." I agree very strongly.