Are you really suggesting that the theory of evolution matches one or more of these definitions?
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
I was taught evo as a dogma. "The embryos have things that look like gills, therefore we are descended from fish." Poor teaching, sure, debunked--but the student is always at a disadvantage. At the time, I didn't really care except to get my grade, but I knew that I was being fed hokum as fact. If it had been taught as a model, which of course would have worked very well, there wouldn't be many out there who resent the kind of impositions of dogma where dogma does not belong.
Now, the evos are howling because the IDs want a listen. Many who aren't IDers, but simply doubt the overreaching claims of evos, enjoy the frightened dismay of those same evos.
What I'd suggest is developing a respectful case that evolution must be taught, but for the best reason--it is a vital paradigm for understanding the structure of life. You can do this without snarling at the religious.
And resist all temptation to ridicule a student who expresses doubt about "descendance"-- there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about a doubt--and no teacher should react with emotion when a doubt is expressed.