I'm with you. I believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. Accepting the theory of evolution doesn't mean a believer has some obligation to explain their faith. If you are engaging a Christian mechanic to work on your car, there is no obligation that the mechanic must explain their belief in order to assess their mechanical ability or permit them to work on the car. To me it seems to be another attempt to reject science and challenge the validity of Christians that accept science.
Accepting science doesn't invalidate faith no matter what some people might claim. What I believe is that we do not understand the Bible enough to have come to the best interpretation of scripture despite those all-seeing, all-knowing groups that believe otherwise.
You aren't asking for much.
Besides the ever-increasing fossil record, there is evidence found in numerous scientific disciplines. Geology provides us with dating of the strata in which fossils are found. Which is based on work from physics and chemistry. Paleontology provides an interpretation of the fossil record and extends it back 3.8 billion years. Genetics and molecular biology provides evidence and explanation for the particulate basis of inheritance, mutations, relationships between groups and changes in the genes of populations over time. As well, population biology expands on that to further demonstrate those changes and put them in the context of the environment. Physiology presents different evidence to establish relationships between groups of species as well as differentiating the popular notion of adaptation from genetic adaptation that occurs with evolution. Ecology helps us better understand the relationships between living organisms and their environments demonstrating mechanisms of change in action like that demonstrated in one of my favorite papers. https://hoekstra.oeb.harvard.edu/files/hoekstra/files/barrett2019sci.pdf
While attacking Darwin seems to be a creationist pass time, no doubt spurred by a view that Darwin is akin to a religious prophet or holy man. His contribution to science was tremendous, but after 150 years, his relevancy is confined to history and the study of biology and evolution has moved well on. But it is important to mention that a significant portion of On the Origin of Species as dedicated to evidence supporting the theory. And since that time so much evidence has been further accumulated that the theory of evolution is the most well-evidence theory in science. To repeat that the evidence simply isn't there is wishful thinking driven by a desire to overturn the theory for reasons other than scientific.
The evidence is simply to voluminous to do it justice by trying to describe it in a few paragraphs. Suffice it to say that practically every field in biology, including applied fields is touched by the theory and in turn has provided evidence supporting the theory.
I will close with mention of a few important examples of the theory including the use of it to make predictions. In the early 2000's, Neil Shubin and his team were able to find fossils of Tiktaalik, a lobe finned fish with derived features of later tetrapods. https://www.stuartsumida.com/BIOL524/DaeschlerEtAl2006.pdf
If you are interested in more evidence, it can be found in work on the ice nucleating protein of notothenioid fish of Antarctic seas https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.0603796103, the cichlid super flock of species from Lake Victoria in Africa, lactose persistence in humans (this also demonstrates convergent evolution by the way), whale fossils and whale evolution from the work of Philip Gingerich https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/48501/ID352.pdf, the co-evolution of newts and garter snakes in the Pacific Northwest https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00132.x
I could go on, and perhaps when I have more time I will, but there is an abundance of evidence supporting the theory evidence by the millions of papers that have been published on the subject.
