What questions do you mean? I'm just saying that for your argument that the scientists cannot explain X to be true you actually need to read what the scientific knowledge of the subject currently is.

For example, the flaggelum. Here is an article that refutes the claim of irreducible complexity: http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
A small part of it:
"Type III virulence systems have well-conserved homologs of the following flagellar components (Plano et al., 2001): FliF (the membrane-embedded MS-ring); FlhA, FlhB, FliP, FliQ, FliR (integral membrane export components inside the MS-ring); FliI and FliH (ATPase and regulator); and FliG and FliM/N (the switch complex). The primitive type III secretion system would not necessarily have had all of the components that are conserved in the possibly derived virulence systems. In particular, if the type III virulence systems are derived, the homologs of the switch complex proteins (FliN/M, FliG) are probably retained only in order to stabilize/support the coadapted secretion complex and FliF ring, and are otherwise vestigial. "

I don't understand it and I guess neither do you? So there must be something other than the scientific evidence you doubt. Which I assume would be the scientific method as a whole. And yes, much like Islam I "blindly" trust the scientific method to give us the best explanation of reality. I'm not saying all results are true or even well done. But the transparancy of the system works extremely well and I see little reason at all to doubt something as big and well researched as evolution. Especially with the abundance of proof that is relatively accessable as a layman (atleast compared to some other fields of research)