Well, you could follow the lead blazed by some notable darwinian posters here (ie Coyoteman and others) who flatly assert by fiat that truth has no place in science, and what you believe has no relevance either way. Following their peculiar philosophic outlook on science, you can can conveniently disregard darwinism as untrue, since according to them there's no truth in science anyway, and disbelieve the whole lot of it, since what you do or do not believe is irrelevant, as they say. That should make them happy.
You could also stop being an idiot about science and its proper role.
Below is the definition of "truth" that I have posted several times and which so upsets a couple of you. I didn't just make this up -- note the source:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.For those too lazy to click the link it leads to a list of scientific definitions on a CalTech website.
The title of that page is A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.