Great story for this discussion imho:
The Last Question - I. Asimov
A lot of the questions and arguments of non-believers of evolution center around details or incorrect comprehension of evolution.
The fact that it's a theory and "only a theory" for instance (it's a theory, founded on facts & evidence and therefore the best explanation we have for it at present, whereas creationism itself explains nothing)
Or the fact that it can't explain the beginning of life (it was never meant to do that, it's outside of the scope of that theory - hence why the very title of this thread is flawed)
Or like the OP so many moons ago that can't understand why there are still monkeys, since there's no "need" for monkeys anymore. (that particular primate *left* his former habitat, and changed as a result of it. The ones that are monkeys didn't).
That said, I will only accept evolution (not believe in) as long as the current frameset holds true. If sufficient evidence is provided why it isn't be true, then it's out with the old and in with the new.
@Augi: I just read about Omega Point this week. It seems like a cool concept/idea of what *could* lie ahead. Or maybe I just like the possibility of it
For some more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point