Ah, so you don't only have a problem with the Theory of Evolution but with biology and every other branch of science (physics, chemistry, geology, etc.) in general.
Now I'm sorry to disappoint you but no scientific theory needs a deity to explain observed facts and if it did it wouldn't even be one.
As I already stated, many of the pillars of modern-day science (Newton, Kepler, etc.) were able to make their discoveries only becuase God was in the equation.
And yet Laplace made his discoveries although God wasn't in the equation. It is even reported that he said to Napoleon that he didn't need that hypothesis (i.e. God) to explain the orbits of the planets (please note that he didn't say that a god does not exist). Until then many (including Newton) believed that devine intervention was required to keep the planets on course. Laplace demonstrated that this hypothesis was superfluous.
Of course Laplace wasn't the only party pooper who showed that you don't have to invoke the supernatural in order to explain observed phenomena.
Friedrich Woehler for instance was an other one of these party poopers who made the God of the Gaps shrink even more.
Regards
You are wrong. Laplace said (paraphrase) that the odds that God did not to create the cosmos is about as probable as comparing infinity to unity. I think you should study Laplace a little more.