As someone who has taken courses in apologetics, I'd have to disagree with this statement. A religious view (better put: Creationism) does have loads of evidence just as well. The evidence is simply not as easily accessible since a majority of the distributed knowledge is completely contradictory to it.
I tend to not believe things that I have never seen and have not been widely distributed. But partially since I grew up in a Christian environment plus the unbelievable amounts of time I've spent researching over the years, I find the Creationist view of the events of the world to be far more believable than the view that supports simple organisms becoming complex organisms.
I won't diss the evolutionary theory though. I know it happens to some extent for adaptation to change (climate, food availability, environmental factors, etc).
Of what nature is this evidence? (edit: to clarify, this isn't a rhetorical question; i'm interested in knowing since this is something i haven't heard compelling thoughts on before) I'm not against religion or anything; the post only served to state that I disagree with creating a dichotomy between science and religion in general. I never said religious views didn't have evidence (historical evidence can certainly attest to validity in certain cases; though i disagree with the notion of being able to prove or disprove the existence of a divine force through empirical evidence), I simply stated that evolution does, as evolution is a scientific concept and has no weight whatsoever in that context without it. Religion is a different area of thought and the nature of its questions is too different from that of science to try and compare and contrast its method, madness, or conclusion.
Don't take this as an argumentative piece, you've said some things I'd like to hear more about, and I'm not sure if I delineated my point effectively.
