The article first defines what scientists mean by “truth”, and then attacks two areas that dismiss that definition—or at least offer alternative “ways of knowing”:
What is truth? Richard begins by analogizing scientific truth with the “the kind of truth that a commission of inquiry or a jury trial is designed to establish.” He adds this:

I hold the view that scientific truth is of this commonsense kind, although the methods of science may depart from common sense and its truths may even offend it.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/12/19/richard-dawkins-on-truth-and-ways-of-knowing/#comments

How truthful can science be when it doesn't have all the answers?

"Science without religion is lame........" Albert Einstein

We know science to be truthful because it admits to what it doesn't know. Science does not make claims without evidence.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses..."
-Also Albert Einstein

That's my point science doesn't know/understand the functions of natural laws, so how can it be truthful when evidence is only valid when it conforms to these laws?

Could he not have said that before he became a theist?

Unlike religion, science does not select evidence to support it. Evidence is presented and science adjusts itself accordingly. Science DOES know and understand many natural laws. Doesn't mean it knows everything.
Einstein wrote that less than a year before his death.

Not according to Einstein

"We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

I know Einstein is right about about science being lame because I belong to the religion he is referring to.

He literally says dimly. This means science doesn't know everything. The point is ADMITTING that science doesn't know. Unlike you who claims to know everything.

He says it is "dimly" for science but for a philosopher it isn't.

So who is more truthful, one who doesn't know everything or the one who knows almost everything?

If you continue to adopt the Western mindset, you'll remain as foolish as they are.

You're claiming almost perfect knowledge. That is just a lie. You have no solid evidence to back that up and you base your philosophy on a few quotes by Albert Einstein that you have memorised.

How is it a lie when you're yet to question it? Is this how smart you are?

Don't you think it is a smart thing to do, using Einstein, a former atheist, to discredit the Western mindset?

Also....who said Einstein was an ex atheist? Go read a book

This is what an ex-atheist would say:

"Reading, after a certain age, diverts the mind too much from its creative pursuits. Any man who reads too much and uses his own brain too little falls into lazy habits of thinking." Albert Einstein

That has nothing to do with Religion, atheism or belief in general. The minimum requirement for an argument if you're using a quote is that it has something to do with the topic at hand.

And the topic at hand is, you don't know everything and I do. So apparently your long hours of reading have failed you while my long hours of thinking brought me success.

Before you rebut, think!
If you don't know everything how would you know I know everything?

Infinite knowledge does not exist for you just because you proclaim it on some website. You have to prove it to me.

Infinite knowledge is wisdom.

The last Rishi attained it after 29 yrs and I only came to recognize it after 20 yrs.

So if you can become me in a week by proof, it would mean there is a shortcut to wisdom.