If microevolution can predict yearly flu mutations, then evolution as a scientific theory cannot be too "far-fetched". Natural selection certainly functions at some level, it is an essential catalyst behind the propogation of species over time.
My basis for believing in a universe far older than 7,000 years (by about 13.699 billion years) is the same science that is the basis for the technology applications that surround us. And I still attend church, and pray to God everyday....and He is a part of my life.
Now, evolution, I think, has not satisfied the burden of proof required of a scientific theory. But, for instance, the same laws (expressed as equations) that govern radioactive decay, nuclear fusion in stars and other processes point to a 4.5 billion year old sun, and an Earth made of rocks formed as long ago.
IMO, religion and science aren't competitors, and neither can define the other. Both, in my view, require a great deal of imagination, though. But the partisan camps that take the "my way or no way" view are misunderstanding the role of both in our civilization.
Why can't people get this?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for a virgin birth?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for someone to arise from the dead after 3 days?
Do the rules and laws of nature allow for water to turned into wine?
These are just a few of the examples of how the science that we as the basis for technology applications do not always apply to the Omnipotent Omniscience God of the Universe.
Evolution on a macro scale never took place. It's the most rediculous idea ever put forward.