I'm mainly responding to the OP in this post, but there are elements of responding to other posts.
It is my observation that criticisms of evolution stem from a grave misunderstanding of evolution, and this thread has not convinced me otherwise. A few points I want to make:
1. Don't "believe" evolution. In fact, don't "believe" anything!
By all means, criticize, ask questions, and test claims out for yourself - but do so in a fair an unbiased way. This is actually harder to do than people often assume. Our biology afflicts us with deep-seated cognitive biases that cause us to believe things and then notice only evidence that confirms our beliefs, no matter how hard we try. The only way to fight this - and it must be fought, if you want to seek truth - is constant introspection. Attack yourself as often as possible, and go after your most cherished beliefs. See if they stand up to the most brutal attacks, and if they don't, change your mind. Theories about reality are not inherently "religions" and are not the property of any religious or political group. The word "evolutionist" shouldn't even be used, as it's merely a rhetorical device. There are no "evolutionists", only scientists.
2. The distinction between theory and experiment
Experiments find data (what you call "observational science"), and theories are attempts to communicate the data precisely (what you call "historical science"). So what does it even mean to call a theory observable, repeatable or testable? Those terms are applied to experiment, not theory.
3. God is not a good theory.
God has no explanatory power because it has no precisely defined properties. A theory is not something you make up and then try to confirm, but a description of what you've already discovered about reality. The problem with God is that you can keep making excuses to brush off any skeptical inquiry. Using this, you can make any number of arbitrary claims. You can even throw the word "infinity" around as if it's a magic word that solves all the issues with your claims. This point is a prerequisite for the following ones.
4. "Transitional fossils" and "vestigial organs" are horrible topics to counterargue evolutionary theory with.
The fact is, no matter how many fossils are found, you can always claim that there are no "transitional fossils". You can always ask, "Well, what happened in between?" This mode of inquiry is designed to impose an infinitely high standard on evolutionary theory. Even if we could somehow clone and catalogue every living thing that ever existed, it would still never convince you. That's not debate. That's stubbornness and bullying.
The same thing happens with vestigial organs. The theory of evolution does not prescribe "purpose" to anything. Any "purpose" we ascribe to anything is of our own making, and of course we can make up arbitrary explanations. Seriously, do you guys not feel embarrassed when your modes of reasoning are compared to those of teenage fanfic writers?
5. The Bible does not make "scientific" claims or predictions.
I'm going to sound like a broken record at some point... The Bible makes vague claims and some of them happen to be right. Some claims are so vague that they pretty much have to be right. That's not very impressive. You don't make a theory aiming to force it to be right. You make a theory to test it against the evidence, if anything trying to prove it wrong.
6. A creationist physicist did something useful? Who cares?
I don't know if you noticed, but being an expert in one field does not automatically make you an expert in another. Your field might give you some advantages, but you still have to do the work. Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers are both biologists, but I'd trust neither of them on the topic of sociology.
P.S. Honestly, I kind of find this whole discussion preposterous because the vast majority of criticisms of evolution are entirely off-topic. "Debates" on evolution are anything but, and they always end up not talking about the actual theory at all. Straw manning poorly understood details doesn't happen in any honest scientific discussion I know. It seems if you want to actually talk about evolution itself, you have to leave creationism out of it. Like
this thread.
P.P.S.
The age of the Earth (as well as the universe) are restricted to be far far less than what is required of evolution. An example would be that if the universe was older than 100,000 years there would be no comets left, they would all of died by now. And while evolutionary scientists have dreamt up theories on how to get around this problem, there is not a shred of evidence for the leading theories. Also diamonds have proven the age of the Earth to be younger than they say, given the decay rate of radiocarbon there would be none left after a couple hundred thousand years. Yet we find significant amounts in diamonds (supposedly billions of years old) and fossils that are said to be millions of years.
No idea where you're getting all this from, mate...
Some highly recommended reading/viewing:
Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20
Irreducible complexity cut down to size
AronRa's YouTube channel
Evolution of the eye
An Alien God
Religion's Claim to be Non-Disprovable
Think Like Reality
Ten percent of brain myth
Tyre, Lebanon
Belief in Belief
Does the Universe Need God?
The main point is not to say something against belief in a God (though many of the links are from atheists), but to try to explain various things like evolution and how a successful, useful theory works, as well as debunking some of the false stuff that's been said.