I don't know if Evolutionism is a real Religion nor its terms. But I do read a lot about evolution and reading this post I get the feeling that you are a Creationist. If you are not maybe you should make it more clear.
The discussion if far more deep than what you make it seem in this post. For example, concerning non-coding or "junk" DNA, yes the name is unfortunate, but the full idscussion must be taken into account (the non-coding DNA wikipedia page shows both sides of this discussion). In particular I underscore this sentence:
Furthermore, much of the apparent junk DNA is involved in epigenetic regulation and appears to be necessary for the development of complex organisms.
This is a new realm for most: Epigenetics. Could be the link that is missing to get a better understanding of non-coding DNA, and is also related to the neutral mutations concept (genetic drift).
You get to the conclusion that
even so called neutral mutations are eroding our genome as time passes.
This is a bit of a stretch. Neutral mutations may well be improving our genome. Definitely not eroding. That is how natural selection works. If its a beneficial mutation the organism will probably get to live longer or reproduce more. Otherwise, the reverse will be true, and most probably that mutation will vanish in a couple of generations.
To summarise, the science we know today does not explain all, but it is not as easy to refute as intelligent design. If you like to read about this I would recommend to start with "Endless forms most beautiful" or Coming to Life
RE: How can we link science to religion?