Your response is pretty late...
Coincidentally, I've been academically studying science and philosophy for the past 4 months and my opinions have changed since last I was on this forum.
Understanding what I do now, I definitely wouldn't say that the theory of evolution tries to explain the origin of life; anyone, scientist and theist alike, who assert that the theory of evolution does so are going beyond its scope.
Science still tries to provide a materialist explanation for the origin of life, but it goes no further than being a light hypothesis, for now, and certainly doesn't do it via the theory of evolution.
That being said, science is by nature unable to provide truth, and can only do it's best to fit a paradigm, that scientists uphold, with nature.
There is some form of evolution, that is for sure, and science tries its best to try and provide clarification and predictions surrounding this phenomena, but by no means provide accurate answers to the mystery of life. That doesn't mean we have anything better that makes more sense, and theology provides no evidence that a "guiding hand" helped along.
But, science and religion alike both require a certain amount of faith in order to pursue anything we might want to know, and considering the different approaches of both fields, and that variety in directions gather a better chance of uncovering any sort of important notion, I see great significance in undertaking both science and theology as valid means of pursuing knowledge of different sorts.
So, in conclusion, I now support the theory of evolution, but do think it requires refinement, as many parts of it are a bit too far-reaching for what I usually consider rational, and some highly improbable.
Personally though, considering the limts of science, I find it rational to assume that some unkown element, force, or intelligent offset, is influencing and helping along evolution, for it to have reached the point that it has, as I do not think it possible for natural selection alone to have made creatures evolve to this point, and quite a a lot of scientists wouldn't find it too hard to understand why, though since there is no alternative that doesn't fall outside of science's current scope, it is pointless to discuss such a notion scientifically, within the current paradigm...
Which is why I love philosophy, because no such limits appropriate themselve; as long as the argument is rational and does not contradict logic, it is valid.
I have to say though, consciousness is a huge obstacle to the theory of evolution philosophically. Psychology has shifted its stance in trying to explain the mysterious element of consciousness and instead regards it purely as a bi-product of cognitive processing in the brain, ignoring any further detail into what it can't explain. In that sense, since science cannot touch certain aspect of consciousness, it is not part of science at this point, and the theory of evolution still holds perfectly fine, and ... that's why I've turned to philosophy of the mind, because I wish to continue discussing rationally consciousness, which science cannot do -- science can't prove 'experiencing' -- since it is a subjective experience.
Science does not provide all answers, but for what it's intended, it does a marvelous job. We should all support the theory of evolution, but keep in mind that science is not equal to reality.. it is equal to our best take on the empirical value of reality that we have available for our scrutiny.
:)
