I think we have to make a distinction between the facts of nature, and facts we manufacture for our own use. For example the moon is white and the wall is white, the wall is whiter than the moon. Now in my opinion the moon is white, and the wall is white are facts of nature, because the light shines of the moon. But the fact the wall is whiter than the moon is manufactured by the observer, by comparing.
So to be objective we have to be careful to make a distinction between information streams in nature, and information we manufacture ourselves.
So then is evolution a fact of nature, or is it a manufactured fact of ourselves. It is the last, generally.
For evolution to be true to fact there must be an actual relationship between organisms based on their difference. But instead what we see in general is that organisms that are the same are generally more likely to have a relationship to each other of some sort, than if they are different. This is because in general organisms in a population that are the same do the same things. They go for the same food, the same shelter etc. they actually interact much, while when they are different they are generally less likely to interact.
So evolution is a manufactured fact, nature does not actually evolve, since organisms do not interact based on difference.
And even when we allow the manufactured fact of evolution, we should consider that populations are more accurately described by stasis, rather then evolution, because they stay the same more than they change. So the primary manufactured fact is stasis, evolution a secondary fact.