As David Berlinski has pointed out,
“The term ‘Darwinism’ conveys the suggestion of a secular ideology, a global system of belief. So it does and so it surely is. Darwin’s theory has been variously used – by Darwinian biologists – to explain the development of a bipedal gait, the tendency to laugh when amused, obesity, anorexia nervosa, business negotiations, a preference for tropical landscapes, the evolutionary roots of political rhetoric, maternal love, infanticide, clan formation, marriage, divorce, certain comical sounds, funeral rites, the formation of regular verb forms, altruism, homosexuality, feminism, greed, romantic love, jealousy, warfare, monogamy, polygamy, adultery, the fact that men are pigs, recursion, sexual display, abstract art, and religious beliefs of every description.”
One of the problems with Darwinism is that it is assumed to be true (and it's assumed to be true because the alternative -- special creation by God -- is unacceptable for materialistic scientists), and based upon this assumption, a variety of conclusions are made about a variety of topics, as Berlinski has listed. The problem is that if the assumption is wrong, then pretty much all of these conclusions are wrong as well, and the great body of scientific literature you appeal to is far from infallible.
Do you really believe that repeating a lie often enough will make it true?
Every single mechanism involved in evolution has been observed, and every biochemical mechanism necessary for evolution can be observed and studied in controlled laboratory experiments.
I challenge you to cite one aspect of evolution that is taken for granted, or which lacks dozens of independent lines of evidence.
As does the term "universal law of gravitation". Does that make gravitational theory not a science?
One of the problems with Darwinism is that it is assumed to be true
That is, to the most casual observer of the scientific process, obvious balderdash. Evolutionary theory undergoes a new, and potentially falsifying test every time a bulldozer scrapes into a metamorphic rock face.
(and it's assumed to be true because the alternative -- special creation by God -- is unacceptable for materialistic scientists
This is also obvious balderdash, under even the most casual of inspections. Science has no official position on creation, special or otherwise, and nothing prevents prominent biological scientists, such as Johnson, from having profound religious beliefs. It is only in the minds of biblical literalists that biology and religion are in a throwdown match for supremacy.
the great body of scientific literature you appeal to is far from infallible.
Unlike the case with unshakable religious conviction, science takes it's fallability as a cornerstone of our confidence in it. That's why we keep hiring scientists to test things. Does your local church hire skeptics to test your faith, and provide a publishing forum for them to air their suspicions?