Great question. I was hoping someone would bring this up.
My belief is that when it comes to the origins of man and the origins of life on earth and how we got here, regardless of what viewpoint you take, it requires faith and is in the realm of religion and not science.
In other words, my belief that God created the heavens and the earth is a matter of faith and not science. I can't prove that God created the heavens and the earth. That requires faith on my part. Similarly, the belief that all life came about via unguided macroevolution is also a matter of faith and not science. You can't prove either one.
So, if I'm going to choose between the belief that God created all things and is the source of our existence or the belief that we all just got here via unguided means, I'm going to go with the first option that God was behind it. I find it much easier to believe in a creation process that was under the direction of God than a random process that was unguided and yet resulted in such complexity and richness of life. Believing in one or the other requires faith and is a matter of religion is my point.
Speaking more to the belief in unguided macroevolution as a whole, upon doing a fair amount of research into the matter, I haven't come across any evidence that convinces me that all living things share one common ancestor. All that we can observe in science is that bugs remain bugs, birds remain birds, dogs remain dogs, whales remain whales, fish remain fish, etc.
We haven't been able to observe the transition process that is alleged to have happened by those who believe in the unguided macroevolution theory. People point to microevolution/speciation, but that's always about things changing and evolving amongst their own kind. Bugs change and evolve, but they evolve into another type of bug. Same with birds and the other types of animals that I listed earlier. To me science is something that we must be able to test and observe. We can't do that with unguided macroevolution. Therefore, it shouldn't be considered a scientific belief but rather a religious one.
So, I fully acknowledge that my belief in God creating the heavens and the earth cannot be proven by science and is a matter of religion. I just wish those who believe in the theory of unguided macroevolution could also admit that their belief is religious and cannot be proven by science.
The reason why I think this is so critical is I think a lot of religious people have lost faith in science because of the theory of unguided macroevolution. If more scientists could admit that a belief in unguided macroevolution isn't science and is instead religious, that would invite a lot more religious people to partake in observable, demonstrable science and take it seriously.