Darwinist fallacies

This blog has become nearly inactive while the evolution debate has continued virtually unabated at other blogs and websites -- e.g., Panda's Thumb, Uncommon Descent, Why Evolution is True, National Center for Science Education, Evolution News & Views, etc.. I have mostly lost interest in the debate because I feel that the Darwinists are not debating the real issues. I feel that a large part of the debate is based on fallacies promoted by the Darwinists. These fallacies are:

Darwinists claim that there is no credible or plausible scientific evidence against evolution. So Darwinists claim that the only arguments against evolution are that (1) no one was there to see it and (2) evolution theory conflicts with Genesis and other religious stories of creation. Therefore, Darwinists claim that religion is the only basis for doubting evolution theory. Darwinists think that therefore all they have to do is persuade the clergy to accept evolution, and then the clergy's congregations would follow like sheep. I am tempted to puke on the shoes of the clergy just to show that I don't give a flying fig about what they think about evolution.

Darwinists claim that those who question evolution just don't "understand" it, so think that educating more people about evolution would increase public acceptance of it. But many of evolution's biggest critics understand evolution very, very well. And "understanding" evolution is a two-edged sword -- it can increase doubts about evolution as well as decrease them. For example, learning about co-evolution greatly increased my doubts about evolution.