It's too bad that this is not really taught outside of college, but there are a lot of misconceptions about how science works and what terms are being used. Let me clear up a few.
Quote:

is that these "viewpoints" of evolution and all have not been proven, as someone said earlier on its a THEORY not a LAW there is a major difference.


Natural sciences do not "prove" things. Proofs only exist in mathematics and related disciplines. What you do in other fields is you postulate a theory/model/hypothesis. If any physical evidence is found that is contrary to the theory then this theory is said to be "falsified". The obvious step then is to adjust or replace the theory so that the new evidence can be explained as well. With this said, the theory of evolution has not been falsified because all evidence found so far is compatible with it or non-ad-hoc modification have been made to adjust for new evidence (e.g. additions by Mayer, Watson/Crick).

It was customary to call good theories "laws" prior to the 20th century. Nowadays scientists no longer call their theories "laws" because any new evidence could shatter them. Thus you won't find a "law of evolution" or a "law of superconductivity" or a "law of quantum gravity". If you want to make a distinction between a theory that has been around for a long time and a spur-of-the-moment idea the right terms would be "theory" and "hypothesis". Note that it's "theory of evolution" and not "hypothesis of evolution".

Quote:

people should not be stupid enough to make a theory part of their every-day belief, of course you will try and say to this that "God is nothing but a theory himself and that a christian is foolish for believing this way"

I would recommend you make the theory of gravity part of your life or else it might be rather brief. You don't have to make the theory of evolution part of your life since for the most part it won't affect you (though you better hope it's part of your M.D.'s life).
God is not a "theory" since there is no universally accepted definition of god. A god that is as general as possible would not qualify as theory either since it could not be falsified.

Quote:

How can you disprove that there is a stronger power that helps a man keep his wits about him and make his decisions, how can you disprove that this power

This falls under the category of "bait-and-switch". The previous posts were not about god in general but about god creating organisms. The former is a philosophical issue, the later is a scientific one. The hypothesis that god created organisms has been falsified. The hypothesis that there is some kind of god can not be falsified, but as soon as you claim god's involvement (natural effects) you start moving it into the testable (scientific) realm. As an example of the later: researchers tried to see if prayer helps recovering patients. A few weeks ago they announced the results that (blind) prayer does not help- this would be an example of falsifying a claim such as "there is a god which heals people when they are being prayed for".