With all due respect, your statement that there is evidence in support of Evolution is not evidence. It is, in fact, the lack of evidence that leads me to reject the "theory". And theories don't compete. They're either correct or incorrect. Einstein's theory encompasses Newton's Mechanics but they don't compete. One is "truer", more encompassing, than the other. Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity have both been found to be, based upon the evidence, correct in their domains. It is their reconciliation by means of a broader Theory of Everything that is being currently attempted with, for example, SuperStrings Theory. Here, it is my opinion that we may indeed have found a mathematical Theory of Everything but that it is our inadequate capacity to conceptualize its implications that stands in the way.
Of course they do--they are all competing for mindshare among scientists and laypersons (a form of memetic, as opposed to genetic, evolution). There are an infinite number of theories that explain why objects fall to the ground when they're released--the best ones are adopted by the most people.
They're either correct or incorrect.
Theories can be said to be incorrect (i.e., don't account adequately to explain the phenomena in question, or do not adequately predict future behavior), but never correct (i.e., they can be falsified, but never proven to be absolutely true).
There is always Einstein's theory encompasses Newton's Mechanics but they don't compete.
I didn't claim that those particular theories compete--they are actually complementary, and in fact, Newton is just a special case of relativity.
One is "truer", more encompassing, than the other. Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity have both been found to be, based upon the evidence, correct in their domains.
No, both have been found to describe most phenomena that they purport to describe more accurately than any competing theory (so far). That doesn't mean that there might not be better theories coming along in the future.