Damn, its a evolution versus creationism debate. I'm gonna be here a while.

Okay, some quick notes. First, when a scientist says that something is accepted as a theory, they aren't saying that its up in the air. Before you can say something is a theory in the scientific sense, you need a very large amount of supporting hypothesis, which must be verified several times. The vast majority of the scientific community needs to be in agreement, and it should be able to make future predictions with accuracy. Our current understanding of all biology is based on the theory of evolution. We adapt to deal with pest crops, an ever updating flu virus, even the practice of animal husbandry is based on the idea that selective breeding can produce certain desired traits.

Okay, fossils. Keep in mind that when you ask for fossils you are asking for something that has a random chance of being buried for several hundred million years. This is hard stuff to find. There are holes to be sure, but one should not assume that just because we haven't found a fossil that our theory will collapse. The fossil record itself is very suggestive of evolution, full of transitional critters, slight variations based on geography, and a general increase in complexity.

In addition, the absence of knowledge is not proof positive of a divine being. A missing fossil or the lack of an explanation does not mean that god snapped his fingers to will it into being. In all honesty, the burden of proof falls upon the more unlikely occurrence.

So then, about creationism versus evolution. So, evolution is a widely accepted (in the scientific community) theory with practical applications and an excellent track-record for predicting future phenomana. Creationism, as a scientific hypothesis, has little support in both the number of scientists and actual evidence. Its a simple fact that proving the existence of a supernatural being like god is impossible. So thats a strike. Creationism has no evidence going for it really, most often attacks to undermine evolutionary theory (like irreducible complexity, where a given organ like an eye is presumed to be only useful if it comes complete, that is, you cannot develop an eye because evolution could not select for it until its useful. Scientists have since tracked the evolution of the eye, from simple clusters of light sensetive cells through a slight recession to detect direction, to the keyhole as possesed by the nautilous, on and on), operating on the idea that if your opponent is wrong than you are right.

I'm an athiest. I have no reason to believe in any of the vast myriad of gods that have been revered. That being said, you're asking a scientific question verus a philisophical one. Its the difference of, when asked the question "why is the teapot whistling", the answers "because the water is boiling" and "because I wanted tea". Personally I question the value of a being in a system that doesn't need his existence, but some people find the idea of a system that runs itself as divinely elegant.

Point is, there is no battle here except where politics and religion insist. Evolution is the mechanics for life on earth. Creationism is not science, but the idea that a God designed all this to work this way is acceptable.