Evolution and naturalism are not the same thing. More importantly, they are not compatible according to one philosophy professor.  

Alvin Plantinga, John A. O'Brien Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, writes a brain-stretching article that overviews the latest evolutionary idea of "New Atheism," an idea that proposes that naturalism and evolution are compatible. Plantinga argues that they are not, and his argument is fascinating.

I believe it's extremely important to see that naturalism itself, despite the smug and arrogant tone of the so-called New Atheists, is in very serious philosophical hot water: one can't sensibly believe it.

In short, Platinga observes that the naturalist teaches that human's beliefs are the result of neurophysiology, that is, by what goes on in the brain and nervous system, and that these beliefs may be true or false. But if that is true, than the belief that there is no God or that we evolved, or that we are entirely material can also be false or true. This makes the entire theory of naturalism unreliable. 

He writes,

If evolutionary naturalism is true, then the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable is also very low. And that means that one who accepts evolutionary naturalism has a defeater for the belief that her cognitive faculties are reliable: a reason for giving up that belief, for rejecting it, for no longer holding it. 

I'd suggest you read his article to get the whole picture. In the meantime, we learn something powerful in Platinga's method. In every belief about naturalism, evolution, or atheism, you can apply the same approach Platinga used. Test their own beliefs with their beliefs. For example, you may have heard of the "reader-response theory," a popular postmodern idea that a literary text or spoken sentence possesses no fixed and final meaning or value. There is no one "correct" meaning, therefore, meaning is what the reader or hearer makes it to be. (Of course, proponents of this theory would be quite angry if their bank teller applied this method when they came in to get some cash). For example, if I say, "Look in the fridge," what I meant (according to this theory) is largely dependent on how you decide to interpret what I said. 

So if someone who holds to this theory says, "I don't believe in Jesus Christ," try asking, "Since meaning is based on what I put into your words, is it okay if I interpret your statement to mean, 'I love Jesus Christ and want to trust Him with my life'?" Ooh, that would be interesting. The husband of one of Ravvi Zacharias' researchers did this...and the unbeliever quickly admitted the tension.