I'm not sure what you intend to mean here. A scientists religious or lack of relgious affiliation has zero to do with science. It is a discipline wherein we learn an explanation of our world and how it works. God is the why of the world, the Creator. He obviously chose evolution as his means of moving life forward. It does nothing certainly to the science to impugn the intergrity of the scientists, evidence falls or rises based upon its testability but its very ungenerous to both categorize or impute lyiing to those who don't hold the same religous views as you do.
Ideally, you'd be right - both the scientist who believes in God and the scientist who doesn't would examine the evidence and base their conclusions solely on that, but people don't usually work that way. If the explanation for the beginning of life is either that God created it, or that it arose naturally in a manner so unlikely as to defy the laws of probability, the atheist will pick the second option, and try to fit the data into that. Pointing out the bias of certain scientists is part of testing their conclusions.
And it's not at all obvious that God chose to create through (macro)evolution. It's never been observed, the fossil record doesn't indicate ancestry and descent, and anatomical features shared by many animals can be explained just as well by a common creator as by common descent.
Should science develop stronger evidence for evolution, then the Church can re-examine the theory and see how it fits with original sin and other teachings of the Church. It's much like the Galileo situation, where the Church didn't condemn him for teaching the theory that the sun goes around the earth, but rather that he insisted the Church re-interpret the Bible when there wasn't much evidence to prove that he was right.