Those who founded science existed centuries before the theory of evolution via natural selection was posited an as explanation for the diversity, complexity, and well-adaptedness of life on earth. It isn't possible to cast them in the same light as contemporary creationists who explicitly reject evolution any more than it is possible to cast them as opponents of special relativity -- neither explanation was available to be evaluated.
Among those who are in a position to evaluate the theory and the evidence on its behalf, 90% and upwards affirm its truth. I don't think it's a good idea to argue from popularity anyway, but if you insist on doing so then realize that you are sealing your own casket.
Actually, if a pretty basic -- and hard to argue against -- piece of philosophical reasoning is correct (the 'principle of sufficient reason'), everything has an explanation. This means that there is some explaining to do for any given fact (nothing magically "speaks for itself"). As a random example, it is a fact that the universe is expanding, and at an increasing rate. Do you mean to tell me this fact doesn't need explaining?
Yet if you subsequently ask a million people how they understand the word 'God', you'll get a million and a half answers. There are a huge number of concepts everybody is using the same word to denote. Another way of putting it is that almost everybody is using the same word but with a different meaning. So it's very misleading (outright false, actually) to talk as if everybody who says they believe in 'God' is even thinking about the same thing.
There are a couple of problems with your reasoning here:
1. The theory of evolution counts as scientific under the standard definitions of 'science' since observations like the arrangement of the fossil record, the similarity in genetic material among organisms, phenotypic similarities and differences between organisms as the theory would predict, and microevolution all count as evidence for the theory. What isn't 'scientific' about collecting observations and organizing them into a cohesive whole under the explanatory banner of a theory? Or do you think we can't determine anything unless we literally see it with our own eyes? That's a pretty severe view with harsh consequences for our ability to know anything about the world. But I'll only bother with examples if you decide to bite the bullet and accept this notion.
2. Just how 'science' should be defined is a contentious issue. So rather than attempt a victory by definitional fiat (which 1. shows would fail anyway), it makes sense to evaluate a variety of definitions and pick one that best describes the phenomenon in question. Until this is done it is silly to argue from the dictionary to facts about the world.
I was gonna read all this... then potato.