Those that are bothered with evolution are better seen as those that aren't so much as being anti-science but rather should be seen as taking a pro-religious stance. But this only really happens when science is in a contradictory overlap with religion. Most of the times science and religion are not in conflict and often there are overlaps that support religion, especially in the field of archeology, for instance.
Any given theory has a varying degree of strength to its arguments. When Darwin first introduced his theory, along with Wallace, his brilliance in introducing a couple of new tenets was not respected among other evolutionists of his day because he gave no reason that could explain how traits would be passed to offspring. His second addition of his Origins
did include a supposed mechanism but there was no objective evidence this mechanism was valid. [Thus his first edition is often more respected, apparently, than the 2nd edition.] It took genetics to push Darwin's model into becoming the mainstream view. Of course, it has been tweaked from there, but the tenets remain the same, I think.
The fossil evidence, or lack thereof, was also problematic for Darwin. Even today, ancient fossils aren't measure by the ton. Only certain parts of the anatomy have much chance of surviving millions of years. The enamel on teeth is the hardest substance we have, thus teeth are perhaps the most common parts discovered. Hands and feet are like our chicken wings when it comes to things to eat, so these are quite rare in full form.
Better evidence, I suppose, for evolution is, like all theories, that the predictions of the model have been verified, even remarkable ones. The list is long and his Origin'
s book enumerates so many that it wore me out and I barely got more than half way through it. But many other lines of evidence have been found since.
Evolution is a passive process where tiny changes take eons to get amplified to create new varieties, with some eventually becoming new species. But breeders accelerate all this with by using their active process, which force changes to produce new varieties. This further supports evolution, of course.
Although evolution is not "just a theory" it's still a theory and it is not a "fact". What I mean by that is that I regard facts as specific objective evidence. A theory is based of facts so it gives us so much more than an aggregation of facts, namely it offers a unifying model of phenomena and it makes predictions of what we should find. This makes a theory falsifiable; facts, if obtained correctly and taken in a general sense, aren't exposed to falsification.
Most religions, I think, aren't opposed to evolution. Most Catholics, for instance, follow the papacy that is unopposed to evolution and, for that matter, Big Bang. There are some few others (e.g. YEC) that first hold a position of faith then, secondly, find that some science exists that conflicts with their interpretations. So here, their religious views trump the science, even when it shouldn't.
But when science becomes strong enough, it will eventually force religious interpretations to take this "truth" into consideration. Science is just understanding Nature, after all, and Nature comes from God. I suspect that it may be better stated that when a certain view looks down-right silly, than a change will come. I have found that this simple outlook (silliness) is critical to understanding when change will occur. "Sillyville" is the place that failed arguments must go when they fail. [They can come back if found to be non-silly.]
The bigger problems are when scientific claims conflict with religious tenets. Tenets aren't easily changed, and justifiably so. That's why they are tenets. These are the pillars that support the religion, or a scientific theory for that matter. Destroy a few pillars, and it collapses.
It's very rare to see science conflict with tenets. Christianity, regardless of denomination, has some very clear tenets that science not only doesn't conflict with but likely can't conflict as they are claims of faith.
It's hard for me to say if, for instance, evolution conflicts with religious tenets. Those that are set on a fixed young age for the Earth, for instance, certainly are in conflict with a host of scientific fields of endeavor, but their viewpoint, again, is a matter of their own interpretations of their religious texts and should not be seen as being in conflict with their tenets so much. Very few interpretations are tenets. They may see it otherwise, and I would be curious if they do. I should know since I know some of these folks, and they are often great folks to know, btw. But I don't see them as much as before and our wives like us to converse in areas we enjoy rather in those that cause friction.
Sorry this is so long, but it may be something I can reference for future threads since this is an on-going topic that won't be going away soon.