Pete.... as I have said before in our discussions, having 'qualifications'... that is, a degree and job... IN science is relevant only when they are using scientific principles as their base.

When a 'scientist' analyzes, organizes, studies and forms conclusions based on religious beliefs, he has just switched hats and is acting AS a theologian and using his scientific background as a tool to dispute the majority opinion in his own field!

He may be excellent in lab work, field research, statistical analysis...etc.... but if he finds data that 'seem' to contradict what he thinks he reads in the Bible, and proposes theories to re-assess his own or others' data to reconcile it with his religious beliefs, he is NOT, I repeat, acting as a scientist any longer.

   Many scientists consider themselves to be religious, in that they accept basic principles of conduct and values outlined in religious texts, but they view science as a way of studying HOW god set the universe going and what has happened SINCE 'creation'! Trying to reconcile a literal reading of the bible with science, when the very status OF the bible as History is itself in question, leads to very awkward positions.

It is irrelevant " whether .. those writing historical narrative intended it to be understood as exactly that.". We have no way of knowing what they thought.... we can only look at various versions of old manuscripts, compare translations of partial texts in archaic languages, do **scientific** dating of parchment and ink, do archaeological research to look for relevant materials..... and make **scientific** assessments of what is found.
There are perfectly good explanations for those who wrote 1000-5000 years ago doing what they did..... but being "inspired by God" is only one of several possible explanations..... and 'believing' that they were inspired is just that- a belief. That is why the word belief is used in religious matters. It is a theory in the sense that YOU use 'theory' when trying to cast doubt on certain scientific areas. The difference is, it is a theory that is very difficult to test in any meaningful way. (Finding 'evidence' that MAY point to the actual sites of Sodom & Gomorrah is irrelevant in determining whether some angry 'god' destroyed them. All sorts of other evidence may suggest how 'natural phenomena' caused those cities to be lost.)
------------------------------------------
You said:
" Some of the other points raised might have merit in defending Darwinism inasmuch as why it might not be false , but none of it gave any reason why it should be regarded as fact. I have no intention of a detailed response unless you actually raise them yourself rather than just give links."

In this, you again miss the point of what science & 'Darwinism' are about. Science, properly done, doesn't bother to label stuff as 'fact'. Science is officially open-ended and willing to change IF better data is found. It is true that some things are so obvious & not questioned that they are as close to absolute 'fact' as to make no difference, but stuff like the age of the universe and its composition are hotly debated... as are investigations into anthropology. The difference is, science simply cannot proceed using Adam & Eve as their basic 'truth'... and I cannot rewrite all the data in order to give YOU line & verse from my link, when you will just use a non-scientific quote from Creation.com to refute me.
We operate under different rules... you have 'beliefs' that you MUST defend, no matter what % of the evidence is against you. YOU (meaning those with strong fundamentalist religious beliefs) are making certain serious claims... and the burden of proof is always on those who assert. A circular argument does not answer that burden of proof.