I'm not a creationist, but suspect there is a "design" underlying the progress of nature. I think the real debate is between design and total randomness. The question is "why?" Scientists can't answer it, not sure religins can answer it accurately, but they try.
Theories (and hypotheses) can't be proved. They can either be supported or rejected.
The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years, first by paleontology, geology, zoology, and biology, then by archaeology, genetics and a host of other fields, many of which did not even exist when Darwin first wrote.
The theory has passed each test. Each fossil that is found is a test; each new DNA sequence is a test. The theory has passed each test. This does not make it "proved" but it is a well-supported theory. On the other hand, ID is clearly a "belief" not a "theory" as its proponents are claiming.
See the list of definitions below:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Hope this helps to clarify things.