The basic underlying issue is why do you so readily and easily accept the notion of evolution as a scientific fact? Are scientist unbiased and infallible? Certainly they are not they are after all, simply human.
So where are the battle lines drawn. Darwin rejected the idea of creation because of his own personal beliefs and sought an explanation that did not include a supernatural being. Those on the other side recognize that chaos simply doesn't organize itself in to every higher forms of sophistication and complexity ipso facto there must be a creator.
It is an excellent debate and the fact that one side or the other wants to ban the discussion is the obvious result of the inability of either side being able to win the battle. So sit back and enjoy, this is the kind of stuff that makes the USA a fun place to live.
Thanks for your posting, though I don't think the above bit is quite accurate. Darwin did not set out to reject the idea of creation (indeed, at one point, he was studying to be a clergyman), held conventional religious beliefs of his day throughout his 5-years as ship's naturalist on board HMS Beagle, and only formulated--reluctantly--his theory of speciation years later, when he came to evaluate the data he had gathered. Whether you agree with Darwin's interpretations or not, I don't think it can be held that Darwin set out to reach specific conclusions, he was following the evidence, at least as he best understood it. If anything, abandoning religious tenants he had held in youth was painful to him (not least because of the distress he feared it would give to his wife, Emma Wedgewood), though it may be relevant that the tragic loss of one of his daughters made him even more sceptical of a benevolent diety.
Janet Browne's biography of Darwin is a magnificent read, whatever views one may hold of Darwin's work.