Hi DEADn,
There are many scientists who believe in God. I was blessed to have sat under Physics and Chemistry professors at secular universities who also taught Sunday School at their respective churches. I have also worked with prominent scientists who were very vocal regarding their faith in Christ.
There is certainly a prejudice against Christianity in the "funded" science level. Individuals who make a living off of public or private funds have an interest in somewhat predetermined "results" of their research (or in their public rhetoric). This is clear in issues from stem cell research, "global warming," or even those seeking institutional tenure.
There is a recent film regarding this prejudice. The documentary is entitled EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED. In the film, Ben Stein highlights the incredible amounts of intolerance and even hostility regarding diversity of thought in the world of funded science.
As for your initial question, I do believe that true science will not refute the truths of God's Word. Now, this is a source of consternation for some scientists and often brings accusations of "circular reasoning." However, on the premise of faith that God is OMNIPOTENT, then there is NOTHING outside of his grasp. God is not "confined" by the laws of the universe that He designed -- although we are physically bound.
Science is certainly not an "enemy" of faith -- although, when it is improperly used, can be used as ammunition for personal attacks on faith. In fact, it takes a lot of faith for scientists to "believe" in science! Much of science is built upon the discovery of scientific predecessors. In modern instruction of science and scientific theory, students often believe what they are taught without "testing" those things for themselves. Why? It would take quite a bit of time and effort to "revisit" theories that are thought to be "well-established." However, this has an unintended effect of never considering alternative views of the same matter.
Evolution is believed because it has been taught as fact and not theory. Granted, there are many things that "seem" to point toward it as ringing "true" -- which is why so many intelligent minds embrace the theory. In fact, most evolutionists point toward micro-evolution as "proof" of evolution on a major scale. They also point to the apparent age of the Earth (via geology) and age of the universe (through astro-physics -- knowing that the light arriving from most stars are further away than the 6000 year "young earth" periodic belief of many Christians). However, the major premise behind evolution is a dismissal of the existence of God.
Many scientists feel that they have no "reason" to believe in God. They argue that, given the lack of "evidence," they can't believe in God any more than they can believe in Zeus, Brahma or a "flying spaghetti monster."
So, since they reason that God probably doesn't exist, they must theorize just how life originated on the Earth. So, they couple the apparent belief that the Earth is very, very old, the age of the universe, the Big Bang Theory, observations of micro-evolution and the apparent similarities between animals (including human beings) and formulate a particular theory. More importantly, evolution teaches that life itself somehow seeks perpetual perfection. This desire to survive, thrive and be the "fittest" (ala "survival of the fittest") is based upon the fact that life continues to thrive on this planet.
However, for all that evolution apparently explains, there is so much more that it cannot explain. Evolution cannot explain why the process of evolution doesn't apparently occur for lower life forms (like plankton), or is regional (the divergent differences in life in Australia compared with other continents), or why certain life forms that were supposed precursors are still around and thrive relatively "un-evolved."
Moreover, the theory of evolution doesn't explain the massive amount of differences between a human being and even the most "intelligent" animals.
Anyway, I know that this doesn't help your initial question very much. However, I should remind you that faith does not need to be "explained." After all, it is the "substance of things hoped for" and "the evidence of things unseen." It is an embrace of something that you cannot see...cannot measure...yet you hold to be true.
I passed from being an agnostic young man as a teenager into faith in Christ Jesus. There is no longer ANY DOUBT in my mind regarding the character and person of Jesus Christ. There are plenty of reasons for this that I don't need to go in here. Yet, I know many scientists who will acknowledge that their "faith" in what they assume to be "established" science waivers.
Still, I know quite a few scientists who not only believe in God, but have a relationship with Him. You might consider asking them the same thing that you asked here. And, of course, it is important that you maintain your relationship with the Lord and ask Him to maintain and even increase your own faith at the same time.