Evolution requires chance without intervention of an intelligent being. This does not mean that faith is or must be irrational. Even without absolute proof, one may study a question and conclude that it is quite rational to believe one point of view and even irrational to accept the opposing point of view. Unfortunately, rational, honest people can look at the same facts and draw very different conclusions. Look at some of the great unsolved cases such as the Lindbergh case or more recently OJ Simpson.
Different people look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
Some people feel that certain evidence is inadmissible, others may feel the same evidence is not only admissible, but conclusive. So, creation v evolution. The evolutionist position crumbles when we think it through. In a world where in every other area but biology, randomness produces chaos, not order, where things left alone deteriorate and run down, rather than improving or moving on to a higher order, evolutionists are in the difficult position of asking us to believe that biology somehow is totally different and that things by pure chance evolve into higher, more advanced, more complex life forms. Therefore, the most reasonable leap of faith is that since we live in a world where order, beauty, and function, are evidence of the intervention of a designer and since this is true in every area other than biology, the reasonable, rational expectation is that this is also true in the area of biology unless we have good solid reason to believe otherwise.