One of the things that annoys me in science reporting is the popular oversimplification of Occam's Razor as 'the simplest explanation must be correct'. That's not what it days and it's often wrong.

Science isn't about being correct or true, it's about building models that give accurate predictions. Occam said that, if there are two theories that explain something and one adds factors that are missing from the other, the more simple one is more useful.

The Gospel according to Matthew says that God sees every sparrow fall. If you want to model the fall of a sparrow, a model with just gravity will give pretty good predictions. Add in wind resistance and they will get better. The model with wind resistance is less simple, but more accurate. Add in God observing and it makes no change to the predictions. You can use the razor to remove God from the model and suffer no loss of accuracy.

This doesn't mean that science says God isn't watching, it says that to existence of a noninterventionist deity is not falsifiable and so not relevant to science. It's a subject of belief. If you believe God is watching the sparrow, that's fine. If you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is watching, also fine. If you believe there is no supernatural entity watching, it has zero impact on the model.

And that misunderstanding is how you end up with polls asking people if they believe in evolution.

I don't believe in evolution. I've seen the results of evolution and moderately competent design could do a lot better. I tend to avoid it as a way of building things. But that's not what the question is supposed to be about. It's about whether evolution is a good model for explaining the current state of the natural world and predicting changes. And models that are a series if refinements on Darwinian evolution are currently the best models for that. No amount of belief changes that.

I believe that a mutation in electric eels developed the ability to electrolyse water and turned their swim bladders into flight bladders full if hydrogen, allowing them to achieve neutral buoyancy in air. That they exhaled oxygen, which caused combustion and looked like breathing fire. I believe that there are no remains of them because the flight bladder rupturing on death caused them to burn to ash. And I believe this because living in a world where dragons at extinct is far cooler than living in one where they never existed. And, because it's not falsifiable (at least, not without a time machine), science has nothing to say on whether I'm right or not. Occam's Razor says that dragons are not needed to explain anything and so don't need to be added to any model. And scientists today are unswayed by the argument that any model is cooler if you add dragons.