MSD

You are committing the simple, tempting fallacy of equating the scientific definition of theory with the vernacular. The components of theory in science are laid out in prose, while a law is written as an equation or series or equations. You are using the layman's definition of "theory," which is the equivalent of a scientific hypothesis. This is one of the fundamental disconnects between general understanding of science and understanding by scientists.

Similarly, responsible scientists are loath to describe something as "impossible" because one thing that scientific inquiry has found over the years is that such a statement is arrogant due to the incompleteness of human knowledge and carries with it a possibility, no matter how slight, of losing the trust of those who hear such a statement and subsequently find it proven wrong.

Darwinian evolution is just a theory, but it is the only theory that is supported by all of the verified and peer-reviewed evidence. Gravitation is just a theory, and it needs some revision. On large scales, massive bodies appear to exert an attractive force on all other massive bodies proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of distance between the objects. Further study indicates that this force is not carried over distance in the same way that electromagnetic force is, but rather manifests as a distortion in spacetime.

This does not work on a quantum scale, therefore it needs refinement. Rather than stubbornly cling to an outdated theory or shrug their shoulders and give up, scientists from around the world have come together and built an unbelievably complex machine to help us get to the bottom of it.
It is not arrogant to assert that the most accurate theory is the one that should be taught as such. It is upsetting to the rational mind that a theory (and please remember that we're using the scientific definition of the word) with hundreds of years of research having gone into refining and developing it should be taught as equal to a theory that is nonfalsifiable simply because proponents of that rival theory shout louder and claim that their truth lies in a very popular old book.

Evolution as an existing thing and evolution as a mechanism through which chance brought about life of increasing complexity over a period of billions of years are one and the same. The fossil record will always be incomplete simply due to the relative rarity of living things having died in an environment conductive to fossil formation, but what we do have is enough that we can understand the evolution of organisms to a degree of accuracy sufficient that when fossils are found that fit into gaps, they are similar if not identical to what we have predicted.

Whether life or evolution were aided by an outside force is difficult to determine, and ultimately an unnecessary question. Evolution does not have gaping holes in the theory that require use to speculate on the interference of outside forces. If you wish to believe that the mutations that brought about new traits were divinely manufactured rather than the product of environmental factors or the normal mutation rate of genetic material is your prerogative. It does not change the fact that genetic drift causes variations in allele frequency and gene expression in ways that may be beneficial or detrimental to an organism's probability of producing viable offspring.
It saddens me to see science anthropomorphized and dragged through the mud. Science is a process, nothing more, nothing less. To say that it is dogmatic and pitiful is not more meaningful than to claim the same of baking, welding, or swimming. By its nature, it seeks empirically and evidentially verifiable truth. These aspects make it self-correcting. There are certainly errors in data and theories produced by science, as shown above in my bit on gravity, but it is driven by a desire to gain knowledge. Like any process, it is hindered by human imperfections from time to time, but these problems will be resolved as further evidence clarifies disputes and questions.

To put it simply, science is not a shadowy cabal of sinister men in white labcoats deciding the future of theory and research. At its core it is a loose network of educated individuals in a distributed but collective quest for knowledge. To gain approval for your work, you must present verifiable evidence to those specialized in critical thinking.
At what point, or during what era, do you feel that evolution's explanation of where we came from breaks down? Do you accept that we evolved from earlier primates? Where do you feel that current theory is unclear enough that it is inadequate to explain our origins?
I would go even farther than calling it appropriate and say that it's fundamental to human interaction and understanding to be taught in a factual, unbiased way about as many of the world's religions and cultures as is possible. In addition to my opinion that accumulation of knowledge for its own sake is a virtue, I sincerely believe that learning about other cultures and religions fosters tolerance and acceptance and will serve to reduce conflict. If we could invest the money spent on war into furthering human knowledge, we'd be a lot better off, and in the words of astronomer John Dobson, "War is a terrible waste of people."
Can you clarify this? I'm not quite sure what your point is.
I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I am not engaging in ad hominem or straw man arguments in this thread. I would hope that anyone who sincerely cares about the position they are arguing would think to do the same. I have done both in the past and they are entirely counterproductive. You are engaging in the same fallacies by calling it "the true colors of the average atheist," though.
If any scientist believed that we knew all the answers, he would cease to work toward the pursuit of knowledge. While it sometimes results in errantly discounting something like the okapi that does exist, there is nothing wrong with demanding evidence to support claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and it is fair to dismiss that argument which is made without evidence, without evidence. It would benefit everyone to acknowledge that certain issues are matters of faith and some are matters of science. The only rational place to put the dividing line is between which hypotheses can be falsified and which cannot.
Arguing and debating are great. Either you come out of it stronger or you learn something new.