first, my shift key isn't working. so, this post won't have any capital letters or correct punctuation, or smiley faces. sorry.
i'm a research scientist, so guess what my answer's going to be--smiley. but, some info is needed.
first, evolution doesn't postulate how life started. evolution says 'life started somehow--then it evolved.' evolution explains how that happened, not how life started. there are scientists who are working on the origin-of-life question, and they 'use' evolutionary theory, but evolution itself doesn't say anything about how life got started.
life could have been delivered by a comet, by aliens, been created by god, have sprung up by itself, anything. evolution is consistent with all those theories of origins.
so, believe whatever you want to about the origin of life. you can still believe in evolution if you go for the outer-space-delivery theory, the intelligent design theory, the sprung-up-randomly theory, or the god-created-it theory.
as long as you don't postulate that god 'started' creation with the full-blown humans/animals/plants that we see around us today, you can believe in evolution. the only theory of origins that is ruled by belief in evolution is the genesis story of creation.
ok, now, the really important point is, that what you believe is the best 'scientific explanation' for the origin or the development of life, doesn't have to coincide 'at all' with what you believe is the 'true' explanation.
many people don't undertand this, but science is a 'deliberately limited' form of knowledge. it's like you're playing charades--you must communicate, but you artificially and deliberately limit yourself to non-vocal signals.
so here are the rules of the science game--
1.we will study 'the material world only'. nothing else. we won't say or even try to learn a single thing about anything spiritual or supernatural.
2. we will use 'material explanations only' for everything. no spiritual or supernatural explanations, not even a single 'mention' of the spiritual, supernatural, or paranormal realms. no spiritual or supernatural explanantions 'even if they are true.'
that's the important part. even if you think that spiritual/supernatural explanations are true, if you use them to explain the material world, that is not science, it is not 'scientific truth'. like in charades. if you talk, you may be communicating the truth, but you're not playing charades.
so, we in science deliberately limit what we can study and how we can explain it. for a purpose, of course, i could discuss the purpose later. but the right 'scientific explanation' cannot claim to be the whole entire truth unless you happen to believe that the material world is the whole, entire world.
that's because science only tells us about the material world, it's not allowed to study anything else. and, it's not allowed to consider supernatural causes, only material ones. so, all science is ever going to tell you is the material ways of how the material world works. that's it, that's all you can learn from science.
if the material world is all that exists, then scientific truth is the whole and complete truth. but, the majority of scientists--not to mention the majority of everyone else--believe that there are spiritual, supernatural, and/or paranormal realms in the universe. so, they don't believe that 'scientific truth' is always identical to the 'complete, entire truth'.
like, if you catch a cold, and ask why, the real truth, if you're religious, is 'god caused or allowed it to happen.' but the scientific truth is that you picked up a thing called a virus, it's replicating inside your body, etc....
so, believe whatever you wish is the real truth about the universe. but, if you have 'any' religious or spiritual or supernatural beliefs, 'do not call them science.' you're not playing by the rules of the game if you do.
your beliefs may, in fact, be the 'actual truth'. but, they are not science, by definition.
so, pay no attention if the scientific explanation for something contradicts your spiritual beliefs. the scientific explanation is just the one that is the best explanation when we limit ourselves to material explanations only. when we expand our horizons and allow ourselves to consider the spiritual and supernatural realms of existence, we may come to a more true explanation. but it won't be the scientific one.
anyway, that's why scientists are quite justly disapproving of calling intelligent design a scientific theory. it postulates that there is something other to and greater than the material world, aka something supernatural. it doesn't matter if that entity is god or what, it's supernatural and therefore it isn't science. finis.
so, yes, i believe that evolution is by far the best, in fact the only, 'scientific explanation' of life as we see it around us today. the 'true' explanation, the one that uses knowledge drawn from 'all' the realms of existence---the material, spiritual and supernatural---well, i haven't made up my mind yet.
the true explanation could be creation, intelliigent design, alien interference, karma, or a lot of stuff---as i say, i haven't made up my mind. or, maybe there are no realms other than the material one, and so evolution is not only the best scientific explanation, but is also the true one. haven't made up my mind about that, either.
if you want to believe in creationism or intelligent design, go right ahead. i sure won't call you wrong or disrespect your beliefs.
but, if you want to call those beliefs science---no. you want to be called science, you've got to play by the rules. and, those are the rules.