A common misconception: "Scientific facts have been over turned time and time again."
No scientific facts have ever been overturned, because there are no scientific facts. You are only partially correct about theories.
There are scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Scientific laws, which were once theories, have been supported by so many years of consistent observational data that the confidence bounds on their correctness are so tight that it is essentially impossible that they will ever be falsified.
As such, NO scientific laws have ever been overturned. Rather, for ex. Newton's laws of motion, were REFINED by quantum mechanics and relativity so that the laws continue to work correctly at extremes of observability that weren't available to Newton. But over the domain in which Newton's laws were formulated, they are still valid to within any desired tolerance. So they are just as correct today as when Newton expressed them, and they have been that way since the beginning of time and will remain so until the universe is over. The same is true of Maxwell's equations, the gas laws, the laws of thermodynamics, and every other law that I can't recall.
Evolution is a theory, which means that it doesn't have the confidence levels of a law, but is supported by a huge wealth of consistent observations and basically no falsifying ones. That means that even if inconsistencies are observed, they will be subtle and change only our understanding of the mechanisms of evolution, but not the overall basic thesis. It is remotely possible that some evidence will be found that will completely overturn evolution, but it is so remote that you are more likely to die by getting struck by lightning twice on the day a cure for cancer is announced, and after you just won the lottery.
Also importantly, there are basically no competing theories to evolution that are supported by even a shred of *reproducible,* non-circularly speculative, evidence. No, the writings in some book are not evidence, because there is no basis to establish that your favorite novel which states "the contents of this novel are the truth" is any more truthful than any other supposedly self-proving novel written by anybody at all.
Global warming, or whatever it's called these days, and many of the pronouncements of the medical science establishment, such as that you should eat lots of carbs and low fat in order to reduce the likelyhood of getting heart disease, obesity, and diabetes, are hypotheses that are to be seriously questioned. In the latter case, it's looking like the evidence is already becoming clear that it is just plain wrong, and killing people to boot. But because of entrenched interests, there will be resistance to admitting fault and correcting the errors for as long as possible.
These should serve as stern warnings to those who proclaim that the "science is established" for their favorite, political and social identity-reinforcing scientifico-ideologies, that while the *scientific method* is indeed infallible, and is no doubt (along with mathematics) one of the crown jewels of human intellectual accomplishment, the implementation of that method by humans is in no way perfect. Even peer-reviewed research is highly fallible.
Even in the case where the science may indeed be right, such as with global warming which I think is most likely being accelerated by humans and which will probably have undesirable consequences (of highly uncertain magnitude) unless we do something different, it is important not to confuse the scientific realities with the practical realities.
Just because you may be technically correct, it is still possible that there is no way to fix it because of factors which are not amenable to technological control and optimization. For ex., anyone with a brain can predict that the most likely outcome of any of the existing proposed political solutions to global warming are likely to both not solve the problem, and make matters generally worse for the human condition due to furthering the evolution of the global technocratic totalitarian governance model. If the only way to get your way is a large scale war and the use of force at every level of society, is that really a better world to live in than one in which we just keep burning the carbon until the coastal cities are innundated? I'm personally more terrified of political disasters than slow motion natural ones, even if initiated by man.
Likewise with nuclear fission power, the problems are not technical. It is perfectly possible within the capabilities of the engineering disciplines to implement nuclear fission power with closed/breeding fuel cycles so as to power our civilization relatively safely for the next few eons.
But it isn't practically possible to solve the human problems that will make such an engineering goal impossible to realize. When you factor this into the analysis (along with a brief view at any chart showing the capital costs of solar PV vs. coal power generation vs. time), you will reach the conclusion that the costs of "simple" technology (which nuclear fission with a closed fuel cycle is about as far away from as you can get, even farther perhaps than D-T fusion) are preferrable because their practicality is so much greater.
There is a far better chance of being able to succeed, as a society, at sustainably powering ourselves for ex. by covering most of our rooftops and 2000-3000 square kilometers of south western USA with solar PV, distributing the power with HVDC, and storing 1/3 of it overnight in distributed batteries, flywheels, waterbeds, and other thingamabobs, than through a similarly large in scale, but incredibly more complex (due to the safety and security issues involved) implementation of full-scale closed-cycle nuclear fission to completely replace our fossil energy sources.