That's because there are no other scientific theories. There are some philosophical hypothesis that might be good for philosophy class or religious studies, but nothing based in science.
Oh, yes, many claim such a basis, but the people who actually do science for a living reject it.
Yes there is that list of "scientists" maintained by the Discovery Institute that signed a petition vaguely claiming there are some unstated problems with evolution, but they would make up such a tiny fraction (less than 1%) of actual practicing scientists that they're irrelevant, and obviously religiously motivated rather than scientifically motivated.
Other origin theories based on science? as in the scientific method? Better get working on that requirement for the evolution first. You know, things that can actually be measured ... observed, tested, etc.
For example, using the “fossil record” to date rocks and then rocks to date the fossil record is call circular logic and is hardly science.