PubMed is the largest and most widely used medical/biological research database in existence. It also contains a wide variety of articles from other disciplines.
A search with the keyword "evolution" returns 311,652 hits. Keeping in mind that "evolution" has other meanings unrelated to the theory, I read the titles of the articles on the first two pages of hits. Out of those, 26/40, or 65% were studies directly examining evolutionary principles. Of the remaining, the relation of 6 (15%) to evolutionary principles was unclear, and another 7 (17.5%)were clearly not related to the theory of evolution. The remaining article was, in fact, a letter to the editor about one of the evolutionary articles, so I did not categorize it.
Since discussion of the theory of evolution involves a fairly specialized vocabulary, I also did a search of "phylogeny", a method of examining evolutionary relationships. This resulted in 106,145 hits, all of which discuss evolutionary research, since phylogeny has no alternate meanings.
This is by no means an exhaustive listing of research related to evolution: many people base their research in evolutionary principles without ever using the terminology. Any time animals are used in a study as proxies for human disease, evolutionary principles are being applied. The testing of prototype drugs starts on simple organisms, and works its way up through organisms that are more and more closely related to humans, until the last stage before human testing is in non-human primates--this whole testing scheme becomes totally meaningless if one tries to pretend that nothing has an evolutionary relationship to anything else.
The field of microbiology uses the theory of evolution extensively. Microorganisms evolve constantly, which puts selective pressure on us to evolve, which puts pressure on them, etc., in a kind of biological arms-race.
Whether you choose to accept the scientific evidence, or you continue to deny its existence because you feel that acknowledging it is equivalent to admitting that there is no basis for religious faith is up to you. As long as people with your attitude don't have the ability to direct that religion be taught in science classes, or to withhold research funding for evolutionary research, I really don't care. Personally, I have not bought into this ridiculous belief that God can't possibly exist if the Genesis creation story isn't literal.
The global warming faithful have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any weather anomaly can be said (by them) to be caused by anthropogenic activity.
In the same way, the evolution zealots have begun to re-define the term to mean anything they say it means, so any change or adaptation can be said (by them) to be evolution. No one disputes that adaption takes place, that's part of The Design, but the unproven part is whether or not one species evolves into a completely different species. The religion of evolution tries to disingenuously equate adaption with evolution, and have suckered many uninformed into believing that they are equal.
Unfortunately, 'examining evolutionary principles' simply begs the question that evolution exists in the first place. Again we see the use of logical fallacy as 'argument' for evolution.
You said, "...remarkable advances in the biological and medical sciences which wouldn't have been possible without that theoretical framework" and have failed to name a single one. Lots of hand-waving but couldn't name a single 'remarkable advance'.
I'm trying to understand what 'remarkable advance' you think couldn't have been made without an evolutionary framework? Should be easy for you to name one so that we could discuss it.
"The field of microbiology uses the theory of evolution extensively. Microorganisms evolve constantly, which puts selective pressure on us to evolve, which puts pressure on them, etc., in a kind of biological arms-race."
And how would that differ from a biology that was created with a broad ability to adapt? Unless you contend that certain unique evidences are supportive only of evolution, you are engaging in a philosophical choice, not reaching an empirical conclusion.
"Whether you choose to accept the scientific evidence, or you continue to deny its existence because you feel that acknowledging it is equivalent to admitting that there is no basis for religious faith is up to you."
Ah, again with implying that you can understand my beliefs and motivations. You couldn't be more wrong. But I understand that you need to misrepresent me before you respond to my points.
So, to reiterate...
What scientific evidence have I denied?
What 'remarkable advance' could only have been made using an evolutionary framework?
And how does one test extrapolations made back into unobserved time and unobservable assumed events?