Question

Good evening!
If I understand correctly, it comes out that the problem of induction led Hume to say that there is no causality at all, only empirical facts. Whereas Kant concluded from this that there is causality, but it exists only in the phenomenon.
And I find both difficult, because after all, why does science really succeed in functioning? For Hume, the question is: if there is no causality at all, then why don’t things just happen randomly, and why is there regularity? And for Kant, it is hard for me to understand how what happens in the phenomenon activates the world itself.
And another similar question: according to the Darwinian account, it follows that there is no reason to assume that the senses reveal the real world, but only what helps us survive. So if so, how does science work? And if I understand correctly, then the answer to that very point is that science too works only on what helps us survive, but does not reveal anything about the world—is that correct?