What evidence do we have for macro-evolution? Fossil record, age of the Earth, DNA analysis, experiments on fruit flies and moths and the like, a theoretical mechanism (natural selection and descent with modification) that is consistent with observable phenomena, etc. The evidence for evolution is written on the Earth, much as the evidence for Jesus is written in a book... Creationists don't believe that the evidence I just mentioned necessarily points to Darwinism. Fair enough. But you still have to account for the evidence somehow, and until you come up with something more explanatory than Darwinism, that's what the scientific community will continue to "preach".
Quibbles: the age of the earth is not evidence for evolution; the paleontologists were originally Darwin's worst enemies and Darwinism and the fossil record have been reconciled largely because Darwinism is so elastic that nothing in the fossil record could refute it except a radically anachronistic fossil (the absence of which would be predicted by consecutive-special-creations or any theory that fit with the obesrved facts of ecosystemic homeostasis); DNA analysis supports the taxonomic classification of animals, which predated Darwinism, not the particular Darwinist account of their emergence; yes, natural selection and descent with modification are consistent with observed phenomena but we don't know how strong they are and we do not have observational evidence that they can cause macro-evolution, even from Neanderthal to human, let alone to achieve, say, the development of an eye; etc.
But my real objection is to Tom's last sentence: "you still have to account for the evidence somehow."
A question for Tom and Nato. In 1500, no one had proposed the theory of evolution. Seven-day creationism was the only game in town. The evidence was a bit scanty, maybe, but it did explain some basic things: why there's a sea and clouds; why there's day and night; why there are plants and animals; why we feel shame (in this respect the ancient Jews' account is superior to modern evolutionists'). So: would Tom and Nato have accepted seven-day creationism just because it was the best explanation around? Because "you have to account for the evidence somehow"?
Not me. If the explanations on offer are inadequately supported by the evidence, you shouldn't accept them just because there is nothing better. You should say: we don't know.