You cannot assert that someone else is wrong absolutely, merely within your own paradigm / frame of reference. You and RubySlippers just have a very different idea of what 'proof', 'truth' or 'fact' are. She's described her own epistemology and ontology - that what is written in a series of books is more 'true' than that which we can deduce or induce from observable reality.
The problem here isn't one of rightness or wrongness, but rather of utterly incomensurate paradigms of knowledge. Arguing about such things is fruitless - you might as well try and convince them that their favourite colour isn't what they say it is. Their position will be just as inaccessible to logical critique.
On the one hand, I entirely agree with the spirit of what you are saying. Generally speaking, some points of view are just irreconcilable, and there's not a lot of point to trying to sit them down with each other. And with the way that this problem multiplies in forums that are semi-public and mostly-anonymous, well...my ten-foot-pole bursts into flames whenever I try to poke at it.
Either a person believes in objective reality or not. Most people who would claim that they do not actually *do*, there are just fewer things that they take as given. Generally speaking, if you attend to all the basic inconveniences of daily life instead of ascending to your denominational nirvana, you at least pay some lip-service to the notion of an actual, mutual, and predictable reality. Even knowing that I am wasting my keystrokes, I have to defend that idea.
Whether or not you believe in as-objective a predominant reality as the next guy, and whether or not you believe that that reality is governed by its own impersonal laws or those of a ruling consciousness, it is indisputably possible to find points of mutually undeniable events, and from those to form some consensus on the patterns of behavior of materials that exist outside our own heads. The bible even supports this process
. It describes the defeat of the cultists of Baal wherein the followers of Yahweh actually challenged them to a religious throw-down to see whose deity could actually light a fire if prayed to. Yahweh answered, Baal did not, and the first "Boo-yah" was heard throughout the land, followed by what I imagine was one bitchin' weenie roast.
That's the thing about reality. It can be tested, and even the old testament expects it to be believed. It may take us a while to find the right vantage point or adequate sensitivity of instruments, but it can be seen.
And the thing is, all the branches of science agree on evolution, and not because of some closed-door meeting. Independently and collaboratively, evolution over millions of years is the strongest, simplest, and most harmonious explanation for hundreds of thousands of observable phenomena.
A couple things to understand about science...it is not a single discipline. It is a formal strategy employed across many many areas of inquiry. If evolution were not astonishingly, even miraculously solid, those independent areas of inquiry would disagree jarringly.
Take, for a simple example, the shape of the earth. Every form of observation at our disposal, from actual travel to astronomical observation to views from orbit, agree that the earth is essentially round. Yes, it's bumpy and slightly ovoid, but there is no form of observation save the emotional certitude of a fringe of devout anti-scientists who would seriously claim that it is flat. If the earth were not round, the astronauts would disagree with the astronomers or the travelers. They might view a round disk from just the wrong vantage point, but travelers who had thrown camcorders on bungee cords over the edge would be compelled to disagree and be able to offer evidence, and the astronauts would then be able to go back and try looking from a different angle. That is how science, as a process, works. It is fueled by *real* skepticism, the sort that hungers to know and have demonstrable knowledge. Thomas the doubter was not condemned for wanting proof.
The fossil record, geology, radiation decay, biology, micro biology, chemistry, genetics, anatomy, embryology, and modern experimentation and observation concretely and unanimously support evolution. It is simply how our reality behaves.
I do think, as humans, that we are invested with certain emotional qualities that have meaning, but it is a mistake to fervently apply that meaning to the objective world. You lose your audience even before you lose your argument. Believe me, I *want* there to be a plan, and a loving creator, and a meaning, and a lesson for every suffering, the same way I want there to be a way for us to agree and for this argument not to hurt people. But if he's there, he's not in the pyre-lighting business anymore, not interested in solving disputes...or if he is, he's working entirely through science to get the pyres lit.