questions evolutionists can't or won't answer

Ok, i'm new to this [i'm only 16] but if John Paul is a religious person, isn't the whole nature of his beliefs that they are based on faith rather than evidence? If he asks for scientific proof of evolution isn't it odd that he needs no proof for his religious beliefs, rather the opposite. He believes they are true then it is a unbelievers role to disprove them. 'Bottom line is the Theory of Evolution is a philosophy and should be discussed in that venue. That is until it can be objectively tested.', then shouldn't he do the same for religion? I know this is a hotly debated issue, the nature of burden of proof but it seems quite odd to me. Maybe i'm wrong, as i said i'm only new, but it seems to me that there are different criteria of proof for evolution and religion. As in, religion assumes there to be a God, while they then demand evolutionists treat evolution as a theory while they treat the presence of a God as a fact. Any feedback would be a help
cheers
ryan