Faith is the absence of logic.
It is arguably the absence of the capacity for logical thought
Nonsense!
I have faith that my car will get me from A to B. That faith is based on my logic. I know how old the car is, and the service history, and the mileage, and have experienced how reliable it is.
I have faith that when I get in an plane, it will get off the ground and land safely. My logic tells me that the principles of lift generated by airflow around the wing are sufficient to get it off the ground, and that the airline would have appointed a trained pilot.
My car still might break down or the plane might crash, but my faith would still be logical. Faith is merely putting your trust in something that you believe to be true.
Chris, please don't take this the wrong way, but I think that you are perhaps under-informed about the size of the remaining questions left unanswered by evolution. There are "boffins" who have a good deal of difficulty with some elements of evolutionary theory. Some are experts in their fields. Some quotes for you (none from religious believers to my knowledge):-
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theoryis it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creationboth are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."L.H. Matthews, "Introduction" to The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin pp. x, xi (1971 edition).
"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.
"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.
"In October 1980, . . a conference was held in Chicago on one of the hottest issues in evolutionary studies. The respected magazine, Science, organ of the American Association of the Advancement of Science, called it `a historic conference' which `challenges the four-decade long dominance of the Modern Synthesis.' `We all went home with our heads spinning,' said one participant. `Clashes of personality and academic sniping created palpable tension in an atmosphere that was fraught with genuine intellectual ferment,' Science reported."G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 55
"The central question of the Chicago conferences was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution."Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980.
"At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No."Roger Lewin, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 12.
More recently, Michael Behe (PHD and Professor of Biochemistry), a specialist in this area, has caused uproar with his books, "Darwins Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" arguing the case for "irreducable complexity", which has been already discussed in this thread. These works are very detailed and the arguments scientifically stated. Whilst many (most?) others disagree with him, it is foolish to say that he has not raised any legitimate problems with current Darwinian theory.
As to why people are/should be interested in whether Darwin was right, I think it is because Darwinian theory has philosophical implications, for both theists and atheists. Those who would love to have faith that there is no God seize on evolution as being a way of undermining belief in an external Creator, who by definition would therefore have a right to a say in their lives. Those who have faith in a Creator feel that the implications of evolution taken to the ultimate are not compatible with their beliefs.
However, faith stances are taken on both sides. It is not just the God Squad who are guilty of this. The vast majority of people know little or nothing about evolution, beyond GCSE science textbooks (if they were ever opened past the "reproduction" chapter!), but they are sure that the "boffins" must have got it right.
Undoubtedly some critics of evolution have a religious agenda, and will not therefore be objective, but some supporters are equally blinkered. Dawkins, whilst an expert, is hardly unbiased in this respect, being the most vociferous and aggresive opponent of religion of our times! His book, "The God Delusion" is a good example of his agenda straying from the scientific to the philosophical. See a review by another boffin, Sir Antony Flew, who you may remember was a strident atheist for most of his life, but eventually changed his mind after serious misgivings about the evidence.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/antony-flew-reviews-dawkins-the-god-delusion/
Not sure if any of the above will interest anyone, I just thought that the point needed to be made that a questioning attitude to certain elements of evolutionary theory does not require a low IQ, rather it can sometimes indicate a healthy curiousity and desire for answers!
I'm off to eat bananas and comb my face.