You have the whole idea of how science works backwards. Scientists have made observations and have come up with an explanation for those observations. Their explanation may or may not be correct. It is possible that someone will come up with an alternative explanation, and science is open to such alternatives. The burden of proof is not on the established theory, however. It is on the ones who are trying to find an alternative. Nobody's demanding that you accept evolution. Provide evidence that evolution is wrong and provide evidence that some other scientific theory is better.
Nonsense! Name another theory in science that is treated as dogmatically as evolution with such paltry evidence to back it up. Evolution is the politically favored child, given a free ride because of the ideological stakes involved. Intelligent design and even religious faith fit the available evidence as well as evolution does. What's the difference?
I even doubt that evolution would even still be around as a theory today if it hadn't piggybacked on a couple of 19th century political movements that helped enshrine it. On the right, you had the Social Darwinists, who liked the survival of the fittest part, even though that aspect can easily exist without the accumulated random mutation nonsense. On the left, the Socialists loved the evolutionary progress idea, the randomness, and above all the godlessness. Leftist intellectuals saw the theory as a way to bludgeon religious faith and conservatism and they leapt at the chance. They've protected evolution like a mama bear protects her cubs ever since.
The left has used its control of the educational system, the media, and the courts to beat the theory of evolution into us for well over a century. They've made into "that which we shall never question".