As a so called "religious" person I can tell you that what I object to is the notion that the theory of evolution is fact when it could be wrong. How do you explain this?
How does that make the theory of evolution different from anything else?
Anything that humans accept as "fact"
could be wrong--we could all be brains in a vat dreaming everything, for example.
For practical purposes, though, most people accept some things as pretty well proven to be true, rely on them and call them "facts," for lack of a better word. We couldn't function otherwise.
For most people who don't have an emotional need to believe otherwise, evolution through natural selection seems the most reasonable explanation for why animals are the way they are. The evidence just keeps mounting and is available for anyone to read in textbooks, websites and other written materials. At a certain point, it becomes pointless to keep pussy-footing around and not use the term "fact." I mean, some flat-earthers or hollow-earthers might disagree that it's a "fact" that the earth is round and reasonably solid, but the average person can't be expected to keep an open mind on those points forever.
Even so, if new evidence produces a better explanation for both the new evidence and the old, then the "fact" of evolution would be rejected, just as other scientific "facts" have been rejected before.
What about religious people who claim they have "facts" about god, about ancient history, about life after death, etc.? Not only do they make claims just as strong, they usually do so without any humility: their "facts" are true because they know they are, are not to be questioned, and are eternal.
Pride and fear of uncertainty are inevitable in human nature, but religions seem to encourage them and glorify them, while the scientific method is designed to minimize them and work around them.
