When you consider the fact that Evolution as a Theory has absolutely nothing to do with how life began it begins to make more sense as to why Evolutionary Scientists can not adequately explain creation.
Now if you spoke with Scientists who work with the theory of Abiogenesis I am sure you would get several who have great ideas of creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
what you will find in abundance with both groups of scientists (and the many that overlap) is that while many will say "we just don't know how life began but we have multiple good competing theories" there are very few that will say "we will never know or can't know therefore god did it"
several of the "good competing theories" consisted of life forming somewhere else and somehow arriving here on earth ready to go. i'm not really sure how that explains the beginning of life. it seems that it is merely postponing the inevitable.
"well, if we can't explain how life formed here, let's just say it formed on mars and then found it's way here...."
OK, how did it get on Mars?
"well, we'll have to spend some time there in order to figure that one out."
I know that's over-simplifying things, but some of the probabilities for life forming "accidentally" are beyond astronomical
Wikipedia also mentioned Francis Crick, who, if I'm not mistaken, came to believe that DNA was too complex to have originated in any other way except by a creator.
I would also like to add that I appreciate that you referred to Evolution as a theory and not scientific fact as I have witnessed many times on boards like this.