R U going to have a double standard, one for Science and one for Religion. Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution.
I'm a Bible-believing disciple of Jesus Christ, so I have to speak truthfully to you: It is NOT a "double standard" unless it seems that way because you don't understand the definitions of "Science" and "Religion".
Science is by definition focused upon and restricted to the scientific method applied to NATURAL (and not supernatural) processes. (And if science were somehow redefined to include the study of theology, I think you would be among the first to howl.)
Religion has been defined in various ways but a favorite view among religious studies scholars (my own field) is "reverence for the transcendent." I prefer that definition over most because it admits that many religions are non-theistic, they have no concept of god/gods.
Now, based upon those widely accepted and acknowledged definitions, would you not have to agree that scientific claims and religious claims are very different and have contrasting foundations? Indeed, as we observe often by the examples of this and other forums, RELIGION tends to begin (and remain fixed) upon particular dogma and then seeks evidence to confirm that dogma (often struggling in the process, actually.) SCIENCE begins with the evidence and investigates it in order to arrive at scientific laws and theories, which are DESCRIPTIONS and EXPLANATIONS respectively. (And nothing is "sacred" and so Science is always ready to reconsider, refine, and follow wherever the evidence leads.)
That said, because I personally consider God the author of the both the Book of Scriptures (the Bible) and the Book of Nature (Science), I'm fine with beginning from either foundation. And I don't have to try to twist one or the other -- as if one is somehow inferior to the other -- to confirm my preconceptions.
Instead, if God is the God of truth AND DOES NOT DECEIVE US BY PLANTING FALSE EVIDENCE WITHIN CREATION, I don't have to be afraid of the scientific evidence and whether it might lead me to reconsider my fallible PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible. This contrasts with many of my Christian brethren who spend a great deal of time on Internet forums ignoring, denying, and distorting the scientific evidence!
Just give God the same consideration you give Evolution.
Considering that, according to the Bible, God has chosen to withdraw himself from the close fellowship with humans which Genesis describes prior to HADAM's sin --- and even to hide his direct manifestation from mankind --- it is disingenuous to pretend that the evidentiary standards would be the same for God as for observable processes in nature. (Indeed, I would bet my bottom dollar that your theology claims that the relationship between God and humans has been disturbed by man's sin and until that is eternally "solved", humans must LIVE BY FAITH and depend upon Divine special revelation instead of LIVING PRIMARILY BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE about God.)
Now what frustrates me as a Bible-believing Christian about many of these topics is that the atheists and agnostics often appear to understand these very basic doctrines
far better than many of my adamant Christians brethren do!
So let me answer you one more time:
Of course I have a different standard for "Science" and for "Religion". Science and theology have very different definitions, are built on very different foundations, and use very different tools and procedures. (Secondarily, different religions have very different and contrasting epistemological systems, but that is beyond the boundaries of what can easily be discussed here.)
Yes, I personally affirm the existence of God. And I have evidence for God's existence. But I would tend to call it "anecdotal evidence" (for lack of a better term)
because I'm honest enough to admit that my evidence does not rise to meet the standards of the scientific method.
Indeed, this is one of the major areas where "creation science" and "Intelligent Design" advocates just don't get it. For example, if I wish to empirically demonstrate through the scientific method that God has created the universe,
the best means of doing so would be by comparing a universe created and intelligently designed by God with a universe NOT created and designed by God. Unfortunately, I don't have that luxury so I have to look for other procedures.
But the bottom line is that we all agree that God is defined as SUPERNATURAL, especially in contrast to the NATURAL world which he created. And because Science is equipped only to investigate natural processes in the natural world, Science has no means of analyzing and making conclusions about God.