I think I mostly agree with you, and a lot of the differences in what we're saying now are a question of precisely how you define your terms -- you seem to define "fact" in a very abstract sense that means you can never claim to know any specific facts, whereas I'm very comfortable in saying, based on the evidence in front of me, that it is a solid fact that I'm sitting at my table replying to a slashdot post right now. In your terminology, that's just shorthand, and there needs to be an implied asterisk saying "subject to the collection of additional data"... well, fair enough, in a philosophical sense I see what you mean, but I don't see the advantage in adding these disclaimers to "evolution is a fact" when, insofar as anything is a fact, evolution can be said to be one, so the absolutist terminology is unlikely to lead to ambiguity.
Where I strongly disagree with you though is in your original claim I responded to: responding to "evolution is a fact," you said "welcome to the same intellectual territory as the creationists." No. You can say that, in your opinion, there needs to be a qualification there, since there is always more data to discover, and in a very abstract, formal sense you'd be right. But when one person is saying "X is a fact, and here is a mountain of evidence that shows it" and another is saying "Y is a fact despite mountains of evidence, because I have a book that says so," the two are not in the same intellectual territory. If you want to say the first person should be slightly more precise, that's fair, though I disagree with you on the utility of such precision in a forum like this (and with your claim that to do otherwise is a threat to science)...
I never mentioned Dawkins! I do think he represents a danger to science, though
I know you didn't mention Dawkins, I brought him up because he seemed to exemplify some of the traits you were criticizing, and because I don't like him very much ;) But really, if Dawkins is actually a "danger to science," then "science" deserves to fail because it is manifestly too weak to deal with even the slightest threat to its integrity. The most I think you can say is that Dawkins, and people like him, are a short-term danger to science education. And even then, I don't think they're as much of a danger to science education as people who want to put creationism in science textbooks -- despite his rhetoric, I don't think Dawkins has much chance of adding a "How we know God does not exist" section to high school biology texts...