

What makes something ‘scientific’, rather than ‘faith-based’ is that it can be proven wrong. Think of it as our best guess so far, rather than some incontrovertible truth. Edit - being provable wrong is not a weakness.
I am sure a basic search will return plenty of well researched and evidenced books on evolution.
As an aside I will say that I heard an interview with a data scientist whose recent work had found that genetic mutations weren’t random (in some way). Which could potentially throw an interesting wrinkle into the theory of evolution, lol. The bloke I heard interviewed stressed his paper had not yet been peer reviewed, and, iIrc, really just pointed towards the possible need for more research. I am just mentioning this as a bit of an aside.
As for the question of whether we are flesh robots made by bug aliens? Maybe that is a philosophical question? I can say that I personally have chosen to trust our scientists, rather than someone on youtube, or ‘X’(, or lemmy)!
When learning about climate change I found multiple news stories with opposing headlines, that cited the same research.
My point is be careful of your sources: try and get as close to reading the research as possible. Reading an abstract, then a conclusion, and going from there is a skill that more people can develop than perhaps they think.
You can learn about a sound research methodology online if you really want, and can’t or won’t be in formal education!
Most media stories are exactly this, and nothing more.
France and the US have laws. The French company has a contract. They either comply with this new instruction, or don’t, depending on what laws they are subject to, and they either get paid or don’t depending on what the contract says. The French finance ministers say, well, nothing really, and loads of people looking at feddit.uk get anxious about it.
What fun!