I won't address the rest of your post, but you're misreading his quote about neo-Epicurianism. He's not arguing that there's no empirical basis for evolution, but rather that there's no empirical basis for the _ethical_ component, neo-Epicurianism, which he sees as often being held by modern atheist believers in evolution.
I see what you mean, though I'd disagree with his conclusion that there is no more evidence of that than of intelligent design. Or maybe not evidence, but logical support at least.
