I was an atheist before I knew what evolution was, became a Christian knowing what it was, and left Christianity a decade later for reasons unrelated to Darwin's theory.
Still, that doesn't rule out that the theory of evolution didn't have an indirect impact. Perhaps without it, I would not have been raised without religion.
God is still responsible for the "naturalistic processes," determining which mutations will occur at what times, which mutations are precursors of new species and which are not, and so on. I have no difficulty understanding that the process of God's creation in the animal kingdom is observable as ongoing evolution.
You probably realize that that is not Darwin's theory. What you are describing is another form of creationism, but adding some of Darwin's ideas like gradual change through genetic modification over deep time, As long as you include a supernatural agent in the process, it's not Darwin's theory. That would be artificial selection, like developing new roses.
For me an Agnostic, I find your quote "after they understand and realize the fact that evolution can fully explain the complexity and diversity of life" overstated. Evolution is a great story teller but does not fully explain anything. Even after the fact we really don't know what causes any mutation and why they are successful but all humans still like to tell and hear good stories. Evolution has some epic story telling.
Evolutionary theory gives us the mechanism for the expansion of the tree of life. In that sense, it is complete.
What needs to fleshed out is the pathways of the branches of that tree, which is not part of the theory. The theory tells that any two living things have a most recent common ancestor whose descendants evolved along different pathways, and that's it. If you want to know the pathway to human evolution beginning with the last common ancestor of man and his closest relative, you'll have to figure out what that closest relative is without the theory, what our last common ancestor would have been, when they diverged, and decide which extinct hominins are ancestors and which are non-ancestral relatives (aunts and cousins, if you will) whose lines went extinct. The theory answers none of these questions. It just provides the mechanism for the change.
And yes, there are great stories, such as the one that goes with the advent of humanity. North and South America came together forming the Isthmus of Panama several million years ago cutting off the flow of the ocean current from the Pacific to the Atlantic, which changed the climate in Africa and transformed some jungle there into relatively treeless savanna. The creatures that had to come down from the trees to make a living were our forebears, and changed dramatically. The ones that still had jungles didn't change much, as they were already well adapted to their arboreal environments.
The treeless chimplike ancestors became bipedal, freeing their articulate, grasping primate hands for other uses including tool use, which is probably what led to increased cranial capacity and human intellect. The other notable changes in man also relate to this transition from arboreal life to running on the open savanna, such as the relative hairlessness and how it permits releasing heat when running by sweating rather than panting, which is important in peristence hunting, wherein these slower apeman creatures could capture prey that would only sprint and pant, then rest, then run again until exhausted and defeated by hunters that essentially never stopped running.
