@ethang5

Really? Both my science professor and my scientist wife would be surprised to hear that.

 
 Ok. 

I saw no reason for your wall-o-text other than to convince you that you know science. You aren't even talking about the same thing as I am.

 You said: ' If a scientist claims to  understand a concept that is supposed to explain reality, and it turns out to be false, he could not have possibly understood the reality. ' 
 I showed that this is wrong by explaining why science is never completely wrong. Science is a process. It slowly gets you towards a truth. You might never reach it, but that does not change the fact that you partially understand the universe.

Why can't you get past the silly caricature of the religious you have in your mind?

 Why can't you get past the silly caricature of "every atheist must have a silly caricature of the religious" in your mind? I did not even know you were religious. (I might have talked about it at an earlier time but I geniunely had no idea about what you believe or do not believe in)

He did not mean just concepts, but concepts that correctly explain reality.

 He never said that. He said that science is meant to be understood. Even if he meant something else, I do not necessarily have to agree with what he meant. I just agree with what he said. 

Off topic unless you're doing the "Look at me, I know science" dance.

 Clearly on topic as you think a scientist needs to know the complete reality to say he understands something. How can we even know if we know the complete reality? 

Scientist certainly do not understand how evolution explains the real world, they only believe it does.

 This line proves that all that "wall-o-text" of mine was relevant and you clearly did not understand (or read) any of it.

Of course there are things scientists understand, but not everything, and a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously.

 Yes, scientists do not understand everything. That is indeed a correct piece of information.
 Yes, a thing can be understood and believed simultaneously. That is indeed a correct piece of information. 

 It is the same old tired atheist attempt to co-opt science and imply that science is the realm of atheism.

 Well, that may very well be OP's attempt (it did not seem like it in his post). But it is not mine. A religious person can still be a scientist. They will BELIEVE in their religion but UNDERSTAND science. This is literally the distinction made in the post. The OP never claims that it is wrong to believe. He never claims that science and religion can't co-exist. Why do you have this silly caricature of "atheists should hate religion and worship science" in your mind?

They both are, and this thread shows that clearly. The difference is that theists admit their belief system.

 Ah, the old "your actions prove my case" argument. It is an ancient technique used by many great philosophers. Thankfully, after many years of training and hardship, I know how to refute it by now:

 No.