Evolution should be treated as a matter of belief

Claim

Evolution should be treated as a matter of faith.

Evolution is a scientific theory, not a belief system, while Creationism is a belief system, and not a scientific theory. Scientific theories have a scientific basis and should be treated as such, while Creationism does not. Therefore, Creationism shouldn't be regarded as an equal to the Evolutionary Theory in scientific terms. (In fact, they can't be compared at all.)
Should the Germ Theory of Disease or Atomic Theory be treated as matters of belief, as well?
How evolution "should be treated" is a normative statement of opinion. It has no bearing whatever on what evolution is, what it says, or whether it is valid. Science is rooted in positivism, not normativism.
In the above source the quote is, "In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution 'so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.'" However, in the original source, Francis Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe (p. 117), the statement was, "[Creationist Duane Gish and I] were also at one in considering the neo-Darwinian explanation of major evolutionary change so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith." (italics added) Thus the quote was taken out of context and moreover originally presented as an opinion derived from religious preconceptions.

Equivocation
Naturalistic fallacy ("evolution ought" argument in place of "evolution is" argument)
Slothful Induction (evidence for evolution should be sufficient to elevate it above belief)
Emotional Appeal (suggest another's belief is being forced on you)
Quoting Out of Context

Hitching, J. Francis. The Neck of the Giraffe. Meridian, New York (1982): Ticknor and Fields.