Coming thick and fast.
False dichotomy presented in the title. The two are not exclusive, but work in tandem.
Everyone acts on faith. Every time you push the accelerator to drive through an intersection, you are acting on faith that cross-traffic won't run the red light to slam into you. You do this based on certain evidences and logical processes. Nevertheless, there is no conclusive proof that you won't be broadsided and killed; which in fact, occasionally happens.
The two important questions are, in the architectural construct that forms your belief system, what percentage of the structure is comprised of faith, vs. hard evidence and logic, and how is that percentage distributed in the structure. If the foundation is primarily composed of faith, the structure will unstable, and susceptible to crumbling if given a good shake. If, however, faith is built upon a foundation of evidences and logic, the structure is more stable and will withstand many challenges.
That's why I don't mind being lumped in with such mentally deficient types as C.S. Lewis, Dostoyevsky, A.E. Wilder-Smith, and so on.
And what parts of evolution are testable?
I have "evidence" - it's called The Bible! It's a written testament of the truth.
Everything will be fine as long as you stupid idiots that believe in creationism and God let us keep doing what we want to! Morons! (Sarcasm and exasperation) People who think along those lines are just as pathetic as any leftist.
In fact what I'd insist on being taught is that atomic decay is measurable and these measurements consistantly show that it would take 4.5 billion years for half the atoms in a mass of U-238 to decay into Pb-206, which when based on samples found in nature and samples of other isotopes wtih different rates of decay, leads to a scientific consensus that the age of earth is 4.55 billion years old.
Further, I'd want it taught that measurements in the shift of the spectrum of light to the red of various celestial objects indicate the universe to be at least 8 billion years old.
If a student should challenge -- say by asking how the age could be determined without knowing the initial composition of the sample -- the teacher could say "very good, Bobby. You get a bonus point for thinking." If the student should insist, the teacher could point out the measurments and challenge the student in return to study hard and grow up to try to refute them -- hence encouraging a love of science.
Now, evolution is a different story.
Student: How do single-celled asexual bacteria could evolve into multi-celled sexual creatures.
Teacher: Mutations
Student: What kind of mutations?
Teacher: They were mutations in the genetic code.
Student: Well, how did they happen? How do they work.
Teacher: I just told you. Mutations, so shut up. What are you some kind of anti-science fundamentalist?
And there you have it.
Evolution is pure faith.