Just a few historical points to throw into the frying pan:
1) Darwin was not the first to propose evolution of species. Lamarck, Chambers, and a number of others wrote about it decades earlier than Darwin. They had different ideas about how evolution worked, though. Darwin's revolutionary idea was natural selection - the process by which he thought evolution worked - not the concept of evolution itself.
2) The concept of evolution does have a history, and it has evolved
over time. Lamarck's evolution by adaptation lost out to Darwin's natural selection. But not right away. Most European (and especially British) scientists of the late nineteenth century believed in directed evolution. In other words, God directed how evolution progressed. They did not accept Darwin's random variation idea. Our discussion of evolution versus creation would seem silly to them because they saw evolution and God in the same evidence. Our modern theory is actually a combination of Mendelian genetics and Darwin's theory that did not become the generally accepted theory until a few decades into the twentieth century. So, evolution has not been a monolithic, never-changing dogma. Yes, it has become a kind of secular religion to some people in our society, with unfortunate results. But it has changed, and probably will again.
We cannot really know for sure if evolution is true because the time period is too long - we haven't been around to actually see it. As Fontenelle once once wrote, "All philosophy [he meant natural philosophy, which we would now call science] is based on two things only: curiosity and poor eyesight...the trouble is we want to know more than we can see." (Conversations on the Plurality of Worlds, 1686) So, we try to do our best with the evidence at hand. Any true scientist, in my view, will acknowledge the provisional nature of scientific knowledge and not treat it like dogma.