The circumstantial evidence for Bob's killing Al may be excellent if a video camera in the room happens to record Bob shooting Al, there will even be direct evidence for Bob shooting Al. But no amount of empirical evidence will entail Bob shooting Al. Bob's double might actually have shot Al. Bob's enemy might have rigged the video camera so that it only appears that Bob shot Al. I am not suggesting that our reason for believing that Bob shot Al becomes inferior because no evidence can entail this claim.
Entailment is simply too strong a logical notion to apply in most matters of fact.
In particular, it is the wrong philosophical tool for investigating the relation between Darwinism and origins. It is here that Shapiro and I part company. Shapiro argues, and I quote, Biological evolution is no more inconsistent with religion than are other sciences, and . . . Philosophy has a lot more to say about the relation between biological evolution and world views than Shapiro is willing to admit. To move from entailment to sociology is simply too abrupt a leap.