In any case, I (and I imagine you too) believe strongly in a great many things that are yet unexplained in full. I fully believe in nuclear power, though I have only an inkling of a reactor actually functions. The reason- because I see the results. Similarly, I don't understand how most drugs work mechanistically but I am confident in their abilities just the same. In fact, most psychotropic drugs were used decades before their modes of action were discovered.
For me, evolution is no different. I fully acknowledge (unlike thost commited to badmouthing religion) that evolution is not a field yet ready to be relegated to the annals of history. There is significant work to be done archeologically so that we may continue to build the already convincing evidence for the process, not to mention my personal need to read up and become educated.
However, just like with nuclear power and pharmacology, the fact that I personally cannot explain all points of a phenomenally complex scientific process doesn't make me suspicious of it. This is why I am always frustrated by the arguments I often see in creationist literature which begin "It is unclear to me how...." or "It seems highly unlikely that... " Just because you or I cannot explain a topic in full does not mean an explanation need come from above.
