The presence of evolution doesn't preclude design, nor would the existence of a Designer preclude evolution.
Design cannot be disproven. Neither can it be disproven that when you walk out of a room, its contents including everyone in it vanish. It cannot be disproven that your waking life is a dream and your dream life real. Some ideas just aren't as useful as others. Creation, whether billions of years ago, six thousand years ago, or last Thursday, is not a usefully tight hypothesis.
By comparision, evolution might have been disproven, but hasn't been. It might have failed to accumulate an impressive volume of positive evidence, but it didn't fail.
Then you have the obvious nature of where the evolution skeptics are coming from: religious horror. It's not really about science.
Now, strictly speaking it is a fallacy to rebut an argument by pointing out the motivation of the person making the argument. In theory, it's irrelevant to the science questions that some huge percentage of evo skeptics are either Protestant evangelicals or fundie Muslims. However, you also never get any good arguments from the evo skeptics. The Second Law of Thermodynamics thing: just bogus. The "no transitional forms" mantra: unadulterated BS. Irreducible complexity: a spurious claim that a poorly defined set of features cannot have evolved. (The standard for what is IC and what is not is vague. At any rate such features could evolve by scaffolding effects.)
And where is the controversy being fought out? Not in the scientific journals and halls of academe. It's in school boardrooms and courthouses around the country. We have a political movement to damage science education without the consent of science.
It's obvious what's going on.