No, sir. Scientist accept evolution as fact based on their assumptions that evolution was real, yet there has been no "missing link" ever found to prove this. Even Darwin admitted that natural selection was more practical than to believe than to believe that an organism over time mutated into something else.
Textbooks present evolution in two different ways—small, observable changes (natural selection, speciation, adaptation) and large, unobservable changes (molecules-to-man evolution). They show evidence for the former and then conclude that this proves that the latter took place as well.
As our understanding of genetics has improved, it has become increasingly clear that mutations + time + chance do not equal evolution. All observed mutations demonstrate a loss of genetic information from the genetic code, or they are neutral. Evolution claims that the process has no direction or goal. If you look at the complexity of the “first” organism, it must be accepted that a massive amount of information has been produced to explain the variety of life we see today. Mutations cannot generate new genetic information; so they cannot be used to explain how evolution has proceeded from a cell with less information than is present in modern cells.
Not saying that folks don't have a right to believe in evolution but it is just as unproveable as creationism therefore, the former should not be valued over the other as fact. How can one belief system get public funding but the other cannot?