Not so long ago, brilliant physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, and biologists were discovering some of the most critical scientific laws of the natural world: universal gravitation, the laws of thermodynamics, planetary motion, and taxonomy- and none of them professed a faith in evolution. In fact, many of them believed in the Creator God of the Bible: Kepler (planetary motion), Pascal (mathematics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (physics), and Linnaeus (biological taxonomy). Evolution took off just a little over 100 years ago, but these men in the 16/1700's were clearly not at a disadvantage, nor are any of their theories or laws any less relevant today because of the development of this relatively-new faith.
And faith is really what evolution boils down to. A scientific "theory" by definition is something that makes a grand prediction based on evidence that has been tested, repeated, and observed. Despite what evolutionists want you to believe (again, a key word), their own "scientific theory" is far from meeting these most basic scientific requirements. Furthermore, when evolution is used to explain not just the biological world but the big three questions of life (How did I get here? Why am I here? Where am I going?)- particularly these last two- then it is no longer operating in the realm of science but of philosophy. And that's a problem for a lot of really significant reasons.
First of all, that's not what science was ever meant to do. That science is now casting predictions and theories beyond the realm of nature will have dire consequences in the near future (did I just use the word "dire"?). Observing the chemical makeup of a star is one thing; telling us that because the star is 10 billion light years away, we see it, therefore the universe is at least 10 billion years old, therefore the Bible is false, therefore there is no God, therefore... well that's quite a different system from science altogether.
Second, the idea that evolution should explain belief is a contradiction in terms. You don't explain beliefs; that's what makes them beliefs. I can give you astounding evidence for the Creator God of the Bible, but I don't expect that will make you believe (as telling as the evidence is). Belief is not a realm of understanding; it's a matter of faith.
While there's a lot more to say, as I've been trying to sort through this issue lately, the bottom line seems to be this: evolution is not a theory, it's an alternate faith- a faith in a world without God. The faith of evolution gives naturalists (again, a philosophy) a "way out" from the God problem ("God delusion," as leading atheist/evolutionist Richard Dawkins called it). Dawkins is famously quoted saying, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." In other words, science has found a way to explain- intellectually- all the things that centuries of brilliant men (i.e. Newton, Pascal) understood to be acts of a Divine Intellect in a great, foreseeing Creator. In his book, The Blind Watchmaker, he says, "Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders... Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation... The one thing that makes evolution such a neat theory is that it explains how organized complexity can arise out of primeval simplicity." (Dawkins, 450-451)
Evolution is evolving from a scientific theory to an all-encompassing worldview that requires faith in evidences unseen... that sounds a lot like a religion to me, and considering the repercussions of that are a little bit scary.