I like the way you begin your discussion with your strongest argument. By the way, have you read Ann Coulter’s latest book? It’s called SLANDER and it addresses arguments like yours.
Although Thomas isn't a moron, I agree that he tends to shoot off his mouth, which is why I stopped reading him years ago. (I count Walter Williams as a more recent addition to that class of columnists....)
However, there is indeed a strong philosophical connection between evolution and atheism. Atheists quite often cite evolution as justification for their views -- essentially, they say that evolution does away with the "need" for a God.
We've all seen arguments that revolve around the idea of "if there's a God, He wouldn't have done it this way." One common argument of this type is the old "optical nerve in front of the retina" example. (Though if it were really so bad, wouldn't evolution have gotten rid of it by now?)
Of course, the real roots of the argument have nothing to do with evolution, and everything to do with whether or not one wants there to be a God. Atheists obviously do not, and so they grab at evolution to "prove" their point.
On the "theistic" side of the fence, believers in God are uncomfortable with the idea that they can't prove God's existence to the skeptic. (God reveals His existence to us individually.) They instead attempt to argue the atheist's "proof" -- which amounts to a requirement to attack evolution.
This explains why the debate is so very heated -- it's not a scientific argument at all, on either side.
Evolution needs no creator. No creator means no god, no divinely ordained right or wrong, no Saviour from our sins since there is no creators' rules to violate (sin). Christianity (probably all religions) is a lie.
I don't think this is ignorantly equating evolution and atheism. I believe evolution is the nescessary basis for atheism.