The epistemology and presuppositions that you use to determine what makes a fact a fact must have some basis. If you believe in the word of scientists, that belief is embedded in something. What makes the word of a scientist more trustworthy than the words of the Bible?
Accordingly, if there is a scintilla of a possibility for some other explanation and you claim that evolution is a "fact," regardless of that possibility, you are enmeshed in faith system just as much as an individual who believes in the biblical account. You may not want to admit it, but it is so.
There is a significant "sect" of Darwinists who use the supposed evidence of evolution as proof that there is no God and we are nothing more than an accumulation of atoms. Their rejection of the transcendency of human life has been embodied in Roe v. Wade. The anniversary of that case is one of their holy days.
So please, don't try to suggest that evolution is not a religion.
Matter of fact, two of the most highly respected and degreed evo's here belong to that "sect" -- they are able to word everything in such a way as to convince the others, all the while slipping-in fallacies under the radar.
You are confusing atheism with what you call "Darwinism". Atheism is a belief system, a "religion". Evolution is not.
Some atheists use Evolution to support their arguments, as Christians have been known to use science to support their arguments as well. That does not make science a part of Christianity, nor Evolution a part of the religion of atheism.
RadioAstronomer posted a very long piece at #263 that I notice no believer has responded to. No doubt afraid to actually consider the arguments RA brought out.
From post 263: How can we determine on a pure faith based belief system, which is the correct model or “truth”? When I ask this question I get answers like; the Bible told me, my pastor stated it, or I prayed and God himself told me. Well, if there were immutable truths, wouldn't’t everyone get the same answer when they prayed or read the same book? Since there is an ongoing fierce argument between the different religions, obviously this is not the case.
You said "Bible believing Christians admit that the biblical account of creation is a fact. That is based on their willingness to accept the word of God as 'fact'".
So to you, it is true, just because you believe it is. It's just faith. That's all.
Evolution and other sciences are based on centuries of examining physical evidence. Stuff you can hold in your hand. Not just the paper pages of a book printed in Nashville that has no proof of who wrote it. You, and probably most everybody you know, just believe it's true, and that's the end of it. You have a consensus of believers around you to support you, and it's "truth".
I've argued this issue from the perspective that you don't need to abandon your faith in God just to understand that Evolution is fact. All you need to do is accept that there is confusion about what the true interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is. That's it.
The fact that books and web sites are devoted to telling you what Genesis "really" means, ought to give you a clue that it's really not clear exactly what it does mean.
And finally. I've made the point innumerable times that I believe it's a stupid idea for Christians to force schools to teach ID, because their young children will be forced to defend their faith as you have just done here. Will they be up to it? Or will they decide that Jesus is just a younger Santa Claus, and will never believe in Him again?
I'd like you to tell me whether you think I'm right or wrong. Is teaching ID a good idea, knowing that a discussion like we're having today will be forced on your children? And wouldn't changing your closed mind about the meaning of Genesis be a much smarter thing to do?