I will admit:
a) that evolution is a theory, as the term is used in its scientific sense, namely a coherent explanation of phenomena that has been tested and found to be consistent with all known data. I will also willingly admit that evolution is unproven, but that is also the status of EVERY theory, law, and hypothesis in science. Nothing is ever completely proven in science, so to single evolution out as being unproven is misleading.
b) That it has been incorrectly taught that evolution explains the origin of life. However, incompetent teachers do not and cannot extend the scope of the theory of evolution beyond the explanation of what happened in the biosphere AFTER the formation of the first life forms.
and c) That there is a small, but vocal, group of people who believe that evolution is a valid scientific theory and have also used that theory as a bludgeon to ridicule religious believers. I completely and utterly disavow anyone who makes the claim that evolution is proof that God doesn't exist or in any way disparage people for their religious beliefs. However, when creationists begin to use dishonest tactics such as quote mining, strawmen, etc. to push their argument, I will disparage them for that practice. I will also disparage people who make specific arguements from ignorance and then continue to make those arguements after it has been pointed out to them that these arguments are based on incorrect information. I have no problem with people who point out that creationists' arguements are based on fallacies, are riddled with inaccuracies or contain downright lies.
Why, then, do you not object when some "learned pundit", especially one on PBS pontificates that the universe came about by a massive explosion that set everything in motion and in the primordial hydrogen based soup a single cell came into being from which all life has since evolved over the ensuing billions of years; and that Creation is nonsense? This is done complete with artist renderings of the Earth of that time and some fish crawling out of the slime to start the evolution of life to its ultimate form, mankind. How is this not a claim that evolution accounts for the origin of life? And these "science" shows are acclaimed (allegedly) by the scientific community as factual. How is this different from what you accuse creationists of doing?
Most of the fundamental dicta of Psychology falls into the category of Theory. Some of the most reasonable conclusions concerning behavior are based on rational explanations of anecdotal evidence. And the experimentalists claim that the results they find in their laboratories are legitimate predictors of the behavior of individuals. (I pick on psychologists because that is my major field of study.) I fault their conclusions for the same reason I fault the conclusions of evolutionists. Neither group of conclusions is sufficiently well supported by the evidence available to state with certainty that it fully explains the evidence.
Belief in an intelligent Creator and accepting the account written in the Bible requires a great leap of faith. But the only One not explained by Creation is the Creator. For the ex nihilo, then random convergence theorists, we first have to explain the origin of the universe in which that random convergence occurs. And that is a greater leap of faith than I can manage.
We all begin with certain presuppositions based on out experience of the world surrounding us and the events which shape our lives. We evaluate all new data in light of those presuppositions. If you have a bias toward science and against faith, you will see everything as explainable by scientific theory if only enough data can be obtained. If, on the other hand, your bias is toward an intelligent Creator who will someday reveal Himself, then you have an explanation which allows for full understanding at some future date to be determined by that Creator. I have chosen the latter. If the former is your choice, please seek the evidence you need. I only ask that you have the courtesy to refrain from ridiculing me for my choice, and to accept that some of those who do believe along the same lines as me are not fully mature in their reasoning and will not understand that you have the right to your choice just as did they have the right to theirs. (Or in simple terms: I respect your opinion, please respect mine and forgive the immature individuals on my side for their boorishness.