You are the perfect example of why we get nowhere with this debate. You want to mix faith and science, which is the basic problem. Science deals with what can be proven or disproven. It is modest in its aims, and it has proven to be enormously beneficial as a method for understanding the world around us. If faith is interjected, then science becomes entangled in religous opinion. That is precisely why ID proponents are lobbying school boards to get acceptance.
"You want to mix faith and science, which is the basic problem."
Tell that to Newton! LOL
To the contrary, I would prefer that faith and science not be mixed.
What I am saying to the pro-evo side is: go ahead and do science based on an assumption of naturalism. Just be honest about your assumptions.
When a scientist states that he knows for certain that the earth is x billions of years old or that common descent explains everything, he is already neck deep in philosophy and faith and probably doesn't even realize it.