So, just to be sure, are you saying that there is evidence supporting the Biblical version of the Exodus in circa 1200 B.C., with enslaved Hebrews escaping from their Egyptian captors?
Or are you saying that, in accordance with archaeological evidence, Exodus is a story based on the historically documented forced expulsion of the evil, Baal worshiping, oppressive Hyksos by the Egyptians around 1570 B.C.?
There is quite a bit of difference in the two stories, you know. Almost like one is a revisionist historical view meant to portray the writer's past in a more affectionate way.
I'm saying 1, evidence exists for exodus, and 2, that dismissing the bible, a first hand account, simply because it is religious is ridiculous, and to do so universally (removing any religious text as a historical basis) would radically alter accepted history.
Certainly the eqyptians would have a reason to cover up exodus with revisionist history as well would they not?