All scientific knowledge is to some degree conditional and always open to revision. Indeed, for something to be demonstrated in a "scientific" way, the test has to be open to falsification. In other words, that which cannot be falsified, is outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. The error many make, sadly, is they think that because something cannot (by it's nature) be "scientifically demonstrated", that it must be untrue. Philosophically sound scientists know this. Sadly, there are many scientists who like to play philosopher-theologian on the side, without actually having the qualifications to do such - hence the mischief of what can be called "scientism"... basically rabid materialism/empricism.
OTOH, there is the other extreme, and this is the tendency of religious believers (at least in this present age) - and this is to confuse the limits of revelation (as they've come to understand it) and the scientific method, or worse yet, to take a reactionary posture toward anything scientists may uncover which does not immediately mesh with their preconceptions about the mechanics of the natural world and what they believe their religious tradition says about that world.
I don't have a deep investment in the various versions of evolutionary theory which have come along (I would say the same of pretty much anything else in the realm of the physical sciences). At the same time though, I don't think it's prudent to be rashly dismissive either.
To point to the fact that the ancient Fathers did not speak of "evolution" as it's now presented is for the most part irrelevent - for unless one is positing that the Fathers received some sort of explicit revelation from the Lord on this topic, they were in this respect no different than us - simply men of their times. They did nothing else but interpret the science of their own day through the lense of the inherited Christian tradition, doing the best they could with what was available; which is fundamentally no different than what we're called to do today. There is nothing chaste (however conditional) scientific inquiry can tell us which is going to undermine the Gospel - what it may do, however, is show just how small our understanding of the intricacy of Divine Providence may have been.
I find it interesting that many are fond of academically saying that in Orthodoxy (as opposed to other Christian confessions) "the age of the Fathers has never ended, and can never end so long as the Church exists", yet in the next breath will basically go ahead and contradict that affirmation by heavily implying there is nothing worth knowing that hadn't occured to anyone past say, medieval Byzantium.
