IMO, your point about common ground is lost when you misuse the word "theory", which sadly (because I agree with what I think you were trying to say), gives his point more strength.
I don't think I misused the word theory. I meant it as "not 100% fact". Even a scientific theory is not a fact.
"If only one fossil was to be found in the strata where it did not belong it would automatically disprove evolution theory--there would be no saving it. If a dog was found in the Cambrian period or a bird anytime before reptiles it would disprove the theory."[1]
Since we do not yet have the technology to map all layers of the earths strata to the point where we could find all existing fossils it still remains in the realm of possibility that a fossil is found in the wrong strata and the whole theory falls down. There are other falsifiable points to the Scientific Theory as well. If there wasn't then it wouldn't be a scientific theory it would just be a belief based theory.
So far it has not been falsified, but it still falsifiable.
Maybe my word use was a little off, but I believe my intent remains intact. Anyone who says evolution is a fact is doing so on faith and doesn't understand or accept that their are still falsifiable points left that could happen. Yes, it's well past theory and into Scientific theory, but it's still a theory.
I generally don't see pro-science people making the argument that evolution is an unfalsifiable 100% fact. I agree with you that such arguments are within the domain of faith. Perhaps I am not being imaginative enough, but I can't think of an example of anything closer to an objective "100% fact" than a general scientific theory that survives over a hundred years of scientific scrutiny.
edit: oops, forgot to show you what i mean, read the first sentence of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory