[BedRock]

I must disagree with you, and say with all honesty, that there is, to some extent, a certain degree of philosophy placed into the argument for the ToE, as defined in Merriam Websters dictionary:

4 a : the most general beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group

and that group being those heard from on FR that espouse that the ToE is much more than a "theory", even in the scientific realm, simply because of gathered evidence, and proven hypotheses.

And because the aforementioned can be stated with some degree of truth, that bolsters my argument that the ToE has to some extent become a philosophical argument in today's discussion groups, because it is taken even a step further with some who argue on the side of the ToE to say that it "must be disproven" to become non-science.

In other words, those individuals who share the most basic of general beliefs and concepts concerning the ToE can be categorized into one group, therefore making the case for classifying it as a philosophical argument about the ToE.

[shubi]

The creationist side tries to argue against science using sophistry, a form of philosophy I guess. However, the only thing science cares about is actual data and evidence.

So, I just don't buy your argument, except to the extent that all science falls under "Philosophy of Science". But the equivocation that science is philosophy is simply a logical fallacy.