I'm not for an either/or view of things. As I said, imo, there is a missing element in the story of how life came to be on earth, not to mention matter itself. To try and hold up Evolution as the complete answer to all questions regarding the origination of things is imo too simplistic. Also, it must be remembered that the same species who brought us religion is also the one who today claims to have knowledge of how the universe itself came into existence! One claims to have secret knowlege of God the other secret knowledge of the origins of the universe! I think it's safe to say neither knows the whole truth of things. I also think a little humility on both sides wouldn't be a bad idea either.
J Harlen Bretz's life is a good example of the intransigent nature of scientific thought at times. Below is a quote from the cover of CATACLYSMS ON THE COLUMBIA by Allen and Burns:
"...J Harlen Bretz a remarkable geologist who defied the scientific orthodoxy of his day and argued that sudden floods of almost unimaginable force rather than the slow, uniform processes of erosion had created the scablands of eastern Washington. Bretz lived to the great age of 98 and in his later years he had the satisfaction of seeing his theories vindicated."
In the early 20th century geologists were convinced that the scablands were the result of slow erosion and were firmly entrenched against any idea of a mass flood since that was too close to the Biblical model something they wanted to stay as far away from as they could. It took them almost 50 years to recognize that Bretz was right. On page 54 of this same book is this:
"Think of these men of science working so hard to make sure that Bretz's concepts could not be true! Were they any different from the early Catastrophists who fought for what they literally believed was a God-given reality? Bretz's opponents saw only what they had resolved to see. They were prime examples of the geological quip, 'I wouldn't have seen it, if I hadn't believed it.' Like members of a faith whose existence is threatened when one small variant is thrown in the system, so these men seemed to feel the entire discipline of geology, and all it stood for, would be sent crashing if Bretz's reinterperetation of Catastrophism were given serious consideration."
From the cover of another book on the same subject GLACIAL LAKE MISSOULA AND ITS HUMONGOUS FLOODS by David Alt:
"This is also the story of geologists grappling with scientific controversy- 'of how personalities, pride, and prejudice sometimes supersede scientific evidence.'"
Scientists do not always have the inclination or ability to see what they prefer not to see just as many religious fundamentalists also see only what they want and dismiss what they don't want to hear or examine.
The Talk Origins site is very interesting but just like anything promoting a cause or view it should be read critically not swallowed whole without some private ruminations and research. I agree with some things there and disagree with others. The FAQ is particularly noteworthy: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
Another point of view which can be considered is that of Sir John Houghton:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/portraits_houghton.html
"As a committed evangelical Christian and the author of DOES GOD PLAY DICE?: A LOOK AT THE STORY OF THE UNIVERSE (1988) and THE SEARCH FOR GOD: CAN SCIENCE HELP? (1995), Houghton has often voiced the belief that science and religion, rather than being opposing forces, actually complement one another - an idea that has rankled many conservative and fundamentalist religious groups."
http://www.newstatesman.com/200605150065
"The Chirstian faith means a lot to me. I believe in God as creator and sustainer of the universe. He has given us the ability to understand creation and to find out about it in order to be creative within it. The first instruction in the Bible is that we are put on the earth to look after it, not to do what we please, but to take care of it on behalf of God. As scientiests we work with an open mind to see how [creation] works and describe what might be occurring. We do that without assuming any prior ideology or belief other than absolute honesty and integrity.
"As Christians we are told to love our neighbour, whether he's in the UK or the Congo. This is not only a Christian idea, of course.
"All of us in the rich world have benefited enormously from fossil-fuel burning on the cheap. This is having a terrible impact on the planet, which will fall disproportionately on the poorest nations and, within those nations, on the very poorest people. There is an enormous moral imperative to try and right that wrong as far as we can. This should be obvious not just to people of faith, but to anyone with a social conscience."
Houghton presents another view, another opinion. I don't think any honest opinion should be automatically discounted merely because it does not fit a standard model of belief whether evolutionary or religious. Isn't it foolish to say "we know!" when we are really so small so lacking in knowledge of so very much both of God and the Universe?