There are lots of folks, typically Democrats, who insist that it is fundamental to all of science. (Hint - that's clearly false. Disagree?Of course evolution is not fundamental to ALL of science. For instance chemistry is based on current measurements, not what happened in prehistory. But you are overstating your position.
How does evolution matter outside biology?
Evolution matters to geology because specific fossils are often used as a cross-reference for the age of specific rocks. Indeed such "indicator fossils" are important economically because of how they are used in oil exploration.
There are also applications of fossils to astronomy, for instance fossil corals have been used to verify how the number of days in a year have changed over time.
Too hard? Name three biology subfields that don't work without evolution?
1. The study of evolution itself.
2. Ecology. A very large part of ecology is based on understanding the Evolutionarily Stable Strategies of living organisms. For everything from mating to parenting behaviors, what animals do is explained by how it is selected for evolutionarily.
3. Taxonomy. We classify living organisms based on the best guesses we can come up with for where their ancestors were in the evolutionary tree. We reconstruct those trees using everything from physical characteristics to molecular genetics. NONE of it makes any sense without common descent.
Too hard? Name three things in biology that were predicted using evolution?)
1. (Prediction made by Charles Darwin. Confirmed many decades later by Leakey's discovery of Lucy and other fossils.) Fossils for early humans would be localized to Africa. Based on homology, humans are clearly an ape. Since existing ape species are mostly found in Africa, our ancestors are likely to be found in Africa as well.
2. (Prediction made by Edmond O. Wilson, later confirmed by him) In slaver ants, male and female babies should be treated equally if there is a good supply of slaves, and should be treated unequally (as they are in most ants) if there aren't. The cause of the unequal treatment of males and females in an ant colony is that a quirk of genetics causes females to share 75% of genes with sisters, and only 50% with parents or brothers. Therefore female ants are willing to devote their lives to the production of more sisters. This causes preferential behavior for female larvae. In slaver ants this disappears because the slaves are controlled by the queen who is equally related to sons and daughters. Remove the slaves, and the daughters express their genetic preference.
3. (Made and confirmed many times by a variety of people.) Pylogenetic reconstructions of evolutionary tree are robust to the specific set of characteristics chosen for that reconstruction. The branching in characteristics reflects the actual ancestry of the animals, and so two sets characteristics will tend to reveal the same ancestral branching pattern. (There are exceptions where common evolutionary pressures cause disparate animals to have similar adaptations. But these are well-understood.)
Now let me guess. You don't believe in evolution, believe that you understand science, and it surprises you that I'd actually find your challenge easy. If so I would urge you to open up your mind, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/, and educate yourself.