A couple comments on the "evidences" provided thus far:
1. We may test on animals which are biologically similar to us in order to determine whether or not the product tested will work on humans. Most would obviously agree with this. The question is, has the ToE shown us similarities between humans and animals, or have the similarities between humans and animals shown us the ToE (at least as evolutionists would interpret it). If evolutionary theory had never been presented by anyone, would we not still have presumed that animals and humans share a number of physical similarities. And would not the discovery of genetics have further allowed us to make the presumption that those animals with the closest genetic makup prove to be the best for testing purposes? As animal testing has been done for millennia, would man not have sought to discover which animals are closest to humans without any underlying motive for proving the ToE?
2. It seems some things are taken to be exclusively under the umbrella of the general ToE, without any possible existence outside the ToE. Could a moderate form of Natural Selection exist if the ToE were not true? Natural Selection is used as an evidence for the theory that all life originated from a single organism, yes? So if creationism were true, if life could not evolve between species, could not Natural Selection still exist in some form? Would men not have studied Natural Selection and determined the same benefits had the ToE not been introduced?
This is the still the question I am pressing: If the ToE had never been intoduced, and all mankind believed that God created the universe a mere few millennia ago, with set species which cannot "evolve" beyond certain boundries; would we have not come to many of the technological advances we have today? It seems the arguments then becomes more philosophical in nature; to say the ToE opens men's minds to possibilities which they would not have otherwise been open to. But then we would need to ask whether it was simply Darwin's theory which caused such a change, or if was the underlying philosophical currents of the day. But such questions are better left to the historians, of which I am not. I am simply pondering the possibilities.
*Disclaimers:
It now seems to me necessary to further define my every word, lest I be misunderstood, whether mistakenly or purposefully. I still am more a philosopher than a scientist. If I have made any gross scientific errors above, feel free to correct me. It is not my intent to mislead, I only speak from limited understanding. I am also asking more questions than answering to any. If I have used the term "Natural Selection", "ToE", or "evolution" improperly, feel free to inform me of it. I intended to use them only in the plainest manner from my simple understanding.