A piece of evidence is a fact. The question is how you tie facts together and how long you wait before trying to do so. (The correct answer to the latter question being "forever" if it looks like you're going to use evolution.)
About your view of people who uphold creation by Creator: open your eyes to those Creationists who are true scientists; open your eyes, the existence of everything is a miracle.
Simple question-begging. I never wonder if there's a creationist who is a scientist. When I ponder the question of motives at all I can't get past wondering if there is a creationist who is both sane and honest.
I am aware of no anti-evolution story by Young-Earth Gish, Old-Earth-But-No-Evolution Hugh Ross, Old-Earth-With-No-Evolution-But-Just-Call-It-"Design" Johnson/Wells/Meyer, Old-Earth-And-Common-Descent-With-Non-Darwinian-Evolution-But-Still-Call-It-Design Behe that holds any water at all or offers much intellectual content.
Scientists look for how their theories (even pet theories) may be disproven, as well as proven.
When you deal with the real world, the only thing you can test is whether a theory survives a given potential disproof or not. Why do creationists never get this right? Why are they always closing their eyes and screaming for absolute ironclad Geometry-class proof?
They either aren't scientists, aren't honest, or aren't sane.