IMO evolution is a fact, as is the Universal Law of Gravitation. Great and as we applaud Newton for his insight we can applaud Darwin. But then, so what. It seems that many like to gloat on creationists misunderstanding and blindness of the scientific evidence and on the weakness of their beliefs when they are based on a literal interpretation of the scriptures.
As a mirror consideration maybe many have become atheists or agnostics just because of their newly acquired faith in evolution and their faith should certainly be very weak.
As in the thread on god vs. science, evolution in no way is an argument for that case and again we could argue for god and science instead.
Faith is believing without evidence. Science requires evidence. They are two different ways of assessing reality. It seems clear to me that some persons can hold both, faith beliefs and evidence based beliefs, even when these beliefs conflict, by psychologically compartmentalizing the conflicts. And some persons can figure out a way to believe in “God” that doesn’t conflict with scientific evidence, by coming up with a version of “God” that does not conflict with science based evidence. (I guess that the latter is what you are advocating.) But the latter is so far removed from most traditional religious dogmas, that it seems to me to be superfluous, except for folks who insist on there being a “God”.
You are right, science requires evidence. But how should evolution theory and the related scientific evidence really affect one´s faith, or lack of it. If you have been interpreting the scriptures literally when confronted with the evidence you should change your set of beliefs. But if you interpret the scriptures metaphorically, then there is no real conflict between your faith and evolution. Therefore evolution should not be an issue of faith.
In addition there are things that evolution does not really explain such as the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and in general the nature of man. IMO evolution is irrelevant to our specie, our survival doesn´t depend any more on natural selection and we may ask now who is the fittest these days?
In summary evolution, in the same way as Newton´s Law of Universal Gravitation, is ontologically irrelevant and should not be given the importance that it appears to have, for instance in this thread.
The rules are changing in regards to who will be selected by surviving to reproduction, but the underlying processes of evolution are still in effect and relevant. How people interpret religious concepts metaphorically, or not, in order to manufacture a consistency with reality, seems much less relevant to me. And understanding the processes of evolution is probably more prone to leading to helpful outcomes than is reliance on believing without evidence.
So it is not ok, for example to undermine teaching evolution to children, in order to convey religious beliefs about creation, even when, with tortured logic, one can promote the possibility of “Intelligent Design”.
I also question the value of explaining “the origin of life, the origin of consciousness and in general the nature of man” thru believing the answers given by religion. That is a dead end. Thru scientific study and logical investigation we come closer to understanding these things. Will we ever have ultimate answers to such questions? I don’t know. But not knowing is better, IMO, than knowing something that somebody just made up that you decided to believe.