Evolution is the accepted scientific theory for the development of all species, just as gravity is the accepted scientific theory for the way in which bodies of mass interact.
As for God's involvement, it depends on your conception of God, even then, science generally does not attempt to overrule spiritual explanations of events, how could it? Science deals with physical reality, religion, for the most part, does not, and even when religion does address physical reality, it generally does not make dogmatic demands of reality, as if religious dogma has any sway over the way in which the physical world operates.
Many people, I'm sorry to say, cling dogmatically to the words in their spiritual texts, only causing problems. The idea that the world flooded for forty days and forty nights and that Noah built a giant boat to save the animals is absurd; however, what the story of Noah provides as a spiritual lesson may have a great deal of value. And that's just the thing - most spiritual teaching comes in allegory, and in language that makes rather difficult metaphysical subjects available to the masses - this is why Schopenhauer calls religion "folk-metaphysics", though he was only partially correct.
And, of course, questions like this always create semantic issues. Imagine two unacquainted scientists meeting to debate, for example, the development of the universe. One scientist employs common scientific terminology, the other was taught science just as the first except that the terminology used in the second scientist's country is entirely different - instead of atoms, the second scientist was taught "spirit" and instead energy "karma" and so forth. Imagine these two scientists debating such an issue, being unfamiliar with one another's terminology - they would both think the other to be an absolute fool!
