As if.
There are whole fields that emerged out of evolutionary theory. Much of modern genetics did, and the particular field of population genetics came directly and entirely out of the effort to reconcile classical evolutionary theory with then new theories about the gene and inheritance.
Many advances in the fecund field of molecular biology have had evolution as a crucial or contributing factor behind their discovery. For instance many functionally important DNA sequences were first recognized, and only later better understood, because evolutionary analysis showed them to be conserved across evolutionary lineages.
Much of the still very incomplete but growing understanding of "junk" DNA, regulation of gene expression, and the like have such a basis. Here's a recent example where it was discovered that not just sequences or regions of the DNA have been under selective pressure, but so in a number of cases have individual nucleotides(!) scattered in non-coding, nonselected regions of the DNA.
We don't know the importance of this discovery yet because we don't know why these single loci are preserved, but they could easily have some important function which could lead to new understanding of, who knows what -- gene regulation, disease, anything. This is what evolutionary theory has done time and again: it's told scientists where to look for something interesting. These apparently functional single nucleotides almost certainly would have been overlooked, possibly forever, but for the assumption of common descent and application of more specific theories about genomic evolution.
“We don’t know the importance of this discovery yet because we don’t know why these single loci are preserved”
“These apparently functional single nucleotides almost certainly would have been overlooked, possibly forever, but for the assumption of common descent”
Actually it is the Creationist’s belief that everything that is there, must be there for a good reason. Even if we don’t know why now, as we learn more we will continue to see the genius of the Creator and his divine purpose. It is the Christian view that God created an ordered universe that led to the discovery of most of our laws of science which define the order that Christians knew to be there even before they discovered it. Those who believe that the Universe and the contents thereof is the result of a random cosmic accident and that we are most surely filled with the vestiges of things long since rendered irrelevant by our evolution have time and again dismissed things as vestigial only to later on be shown that they indeed had current biological purpose and function.
I applaud the fact that this time around you have the foresight to know that what looks like a blank spot to you now will soon enough be shown to have a purpose. It shows that you have learned through science that there is purpose behind our design and the blank spots will never just turn out to be some random purposeless vestige of a prior species.
The fact that you ask “why” and not just how, belies that you suspect that there is more at work than just random chance and selection. If random chance and selection is the answer to all “why” questions you should stop using the word and only ask how. If there is no Creator, there is no purpose, no reason, no “why”, only “how”(by accident of course).
Honestly, If this whole universe were the result of some Godless cosmic accident and governed by chance and the path of least resistance, could there be any useful purpose for you to be struggling to change my mind?
If however you are in denial of your Creator, I can see how you would want to make a strong rebuttal when I point out you were created for a purpose and and with that comes responsibility to the Creator you defy.