No, a Scientific Theory is, to oversimplify, "Probably right". It is usually based on empirical evidence (and correlation does not imply causation, but it sure does help :p) as well as a crapton of logical/mathematical relationships (those help a lot more), but it is not a fact. It is still refutable. It is just a way to explain. A "theory" if you will :p
Not a huge distinction (but only in the sense that "fact" is always mutable), but one that really SHOULD be emphasized. Far too many people feel that evolution is fact, and many beliefs seem based on it being correct because it is correct (Face it, we humans tend to be very susceptible to circular logic :p).
So yes, a Scientific Theory is "fact", but only in the same sense that it was "fact" that man could never fly, "fact" that there was nothing smaller than an electron, and "fact" that the world was created by some dude who knocked up a woman way back when :p. Admittedly, Evolution is much better supported than any of those "facts", but that doesn't mean it isn't still a theory :p
Now, I for one feel that Evolution, starring David Duchovney, SHOULD be taught as fact. People need to learn about Head & Shoulders. But there is a reason that I am not allowed any real power over the world.

I think the human race came into being when someone thought about putting bacon on a cheeseburger. Just a thought. xD

So many internet forums go downhill the moment they turn into a christianity vs science argument. Maybe we should try to avoid that here. I've never yet seen anyone change their views based on what people post in these threads, so it basically all falls on deaf ears.

What you just described isn't actually evolution, but abiogenesis. Evolution is simply the process of species changing over time to eventually become new species, and natural selection is the scientifically accepted driving force for this process (there's also numerous competing hypothesis over many of the finer details of evolution, even though the general process of evolution is basically accepted as scientific fact). The theory of evolution makes no claims to how life originated. With respect to abiogenesis there are a fair number of hypotheses regarding it, but as far as I know there really isn't a front-runner that fits the available evidence better than the others at the moment.
Speaking as a scientist, this is on the right track, but doesn't fully give scientific theories their due. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has survived numerous challenges to its predictive value, providing not only an explanation that fits the available evidence, but which has also managed to make accurate predictions regarding phenomenon the theory applies to. This doesn't mean it's fully accurate, it just means it's a highly accurate model (as an instructor of mine was fond of saying, "All models are wrong... but some are useful"). Later hypotheses (which become theories) may prove more accurate and thus supplant the original theory (as Relativity proved more accurate than Newtonian mechanics), although even in such cases the original theory still usually remains a useful predictive tool as long as the constraints within which it is accurate are kept in mind.

I'm confused as to how the video is taking potshots at Christianity.

OK, since this is passed on to other pages, let me respond to the idea evolution has no means to give any purpose in life, and such.
Here is a quote from someone that clearly holds to Darwinian evolution.
Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker"
"Natural Selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all."
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Although he is confronted with design all around him, he cannot allow himself or his readers to believe there is design. Evolution says there is only random forces that have no purpose, no meaning, and yet what results is clear design and purpose.
To look around the world to look into the structure of the cell and beyond is to see design, purpose, and order; none of which fits into the evolutionary idea.
So, if one holds firmly to this view there is no purpose. No purpose to the universe, no purpose to people's lives, and no matter what you do it amounts to nothing in the end as it is nothing more than purposeless forces moving in your life. and if we are part of this cosmic random purposeless flow do you truly have free will?
I personally hold that there is a God who has created a universe that has meaning and purpose, and our lives have great meaning and purpose as well. He has given free choice to believe or reject but still be responsible for it.
Also, I believe that because there is order and purpose it affords scientist (Like Dawkins) to study the universe and make many hypothesis, that result in theories, and maybe become a law (rare few).
Anyway, my short response to some questions asked of me.

Faithful- Your comments don't address anything resembling actual science. They could best be described as philosophical arguments, and while there may be a time and place for such things they neither model nor predict the observable universe and are thus of no concern when considering the sciences. Scientific hypotheses and theories model and predict the observable universe, sometimes resulting in models that seem to run contrary to normal logic and sense, but which still model the observable universe with remarkable accuracy (such as the wave-particle duality); reality is sometimes just weird like that. Now, if you have reason to think that a given hypothesis or theory doesn't actually accurately model the observable universe then the proper way to approach it is to actually learn the relevant science involved and go about empirically falsifying the hypothesis or theory. Or even better, develop a hypothesis that provides a better model and predictions than the existing theory. This is how science, and human knowledge itself, progresses. However, if the only issue you have is that you don't like what the reality of the observable universe is and thus reject it, then that's basically the definition of insanity, and you may wish to seek help.
The problem that many folks similar to you have is for some reason you dislike the conclusions that a scientific theory has arrived at, but yet aren't willing to take the time to understand how those conclusions were arrived at, what the implications actually are, or often times what the actual conclusions even are. For that matter there is often a lack of understanding of what the scientific method used to arrive at the conclusions even is. The result is basically a clumsy flailing about, fully lacking understanding of what is being opposed, yet opposing it nonetheless.

DarrkPhoenix, I never claimed to be a scientist or have understanding of how to go about the research you must live within on a regular basis.
Let me ask; have applied as much energy to looking into science from a creationist vantage point to honestly rule it out in a legitimate manner?
I am more than willing to listen to what "conclusions that a scientific theory has arrived at" that you believe I dislike. I am not claiming to know it all or even understand it all, but I am wiling to listen.
Can you help understand then, what hope evolution gives to the human race as to the meaning of life, and the purpose for which we are here?

Why does life have to have a meaning? Why can't we be simple unreasoning animals driven by instinct to feed, fight and fuck?
Out of necessity to avoid predators, our ancestors learned to use rocks to bash in the skull of a predator. Then one day a clever primate realised that getting close enough to use a rock was still dangerous and hit upon the idea of using a big stick so he could bash in skulls from a greater distance. Then one especially clever primate came up with the equation that changed everything "Stick + Rock = AWESOME!"
After a while, these stone axe makers came across other primates who hadn't discovered the equation of awesome. To these primates they said "you're still using rocks and sticks seperately? Thats SO Cretaceous era! Let us show you how to put rocks and sticks together". In the spirit of helping their fellow primate, they taught them how to make the first stone axes. Well actually more than likely they used their advanced weapons to kill the dominant males and absorb the weaker tribe but even in that they helped keep the majority of them safe from predators.
The primates were safer and lived long enough to come up with incredible new advances like a stick combined with a rock combined with some sort of vine to stop the rock falling off the end of the stick. As these primates bred and evolved towards humanity, they kept figuring out how best to protect themselves against predators and then abused those discoveries to kill each other over resources and mates.
Eventually they were powerful and safe enough to stay in one place and not be nomadic, they saw the way plants grew and eventually figured out that they came from seeds and what the seeds needed to grow which was the beginnings of agriculture. Eventually someone got sick of carrying buckets of water up from the river every day and set to work inventing the pipe and pump system and the foundation of the eventual glory that is the toilet was born. Also it helped their crops grow so eventually they were able to feed more than just themselves. Once one person was able to feed himself and another, they were able to start doing more than just farming and could explore the land.
The explorers eventually discover another tribe doing something similar but instead of potatoes, this tribe was growing sweet delicious carrots. Our heroes decide that they want carrots too but if they went to fight the other tribe, there wouldn't be enough people to tend to the potatoes. They realised that if the other tribe don't have potatoes, maybe they could do a swap, some potatoes for some carrots and bam, trade and the merchant was born.
After a few years of peaceful contact with this other tribe, the primates realise that its not so bad working together instead of killing each other and understand that they get more done when they're not in fear for their lives so they start to teach their people not to kill each other. New technology completed: Code Of Laws and the foundations of modern society are born.
Now all that is coming from a person overflowing with cynicism but I think that's far more majestic and noble than anything I ever read in the bible. Our ancestors rose from simple beasts, conqering predators, technical challenges and their very instincts to become an evolved and at least occasionally intellectual people. They've largely agreed on a basic set of rules to stop us becoming the very thing we came from, unreasoning animals that feed, fight and fuck.
I've always suspected that the reason people believe in the religio-centric creation myth is because they have a deeply rooted need to feel special. Fair enough, I've got no problem with that but isn't it better to take pride in the fact that you come from a long line of brave and intelligent simians who overcame all that rather than thinking you're the result of some ill-defined entity playing with his biological lego set?
It seems to me that the major difference between science and theology is that science actually wants to be proven wrong because that leads to a deeper understanding of things, would you concur with that hypothesis?

Why is it necessary for there to be a 'purpose' for us to be here? Why is it necessary for evolution to give us hope? I don't follow your reasoning here.
Gundato: apologies. I worded my post poorly, I think. DarkPhoenix's response is far more eloquent than I could put it, so I'll just say check out what he said.

I've yet to encounter any actual scientific hypotheses regarding creationism/ID. This is to say that I've never seen creationism or ID presented as a model that can be used to make falsifiable predictions. Trying to rule out every hypothetical is not within the purview of science. Once a predictive, falsifiable model has been put forth then it can be put through standard scientific rigor, but until then there's simply nothing to consider from a scientific perspective.
The theory of evolution and science in general for that matter are utterly unconcerned with such things. The theory of evolution merely says that species changing over time to form new species is a predictive model that strongly fits the available evidence. Whatever additional meaning (if any) people choose to assign to this is a personal matter for them, and utterly outside of the realm of science.
Can't really comment on the goals of theology as I'm hardly an expert there, but I certainly do agree that science constantly seeks to prove itself wrong (or more accurately scientists seek to prove existing theories wrong), as doing so is what results in a better understanding of the observable universe. To apply one of my favorite quotes to this:
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov

See, the huge misconception here is that evolution is random: It's not. There is a pursue, and there is a huge deal of order: There just doesn't necessarily has to be, and notice I'm not saying there isn't, any huge hand behind it all. It pursues perfection by eliminating weaker species - at least, natural selection does, and that's pretty much a proven concept.

The process of evolution doesn't pursue any goal, rather it simply results in advantageous genes becoming more widespread, and thus a shift in the overall population phenotype. Note that this isn't a matter of stronger vs weaker genes, but simply genes that convey a greater ability to survive and pass on those genes to the next generation.

I think the important point in FenixP's post though is that the process is not random. If it were random, it would be doomed to failure very quickly. Evolution is achieved through non-random natural selection.

There actually is a pretty significant random component to it, at least when it comes to new genotypes being introduced to the gene pool. And most of the new genotypes tend to either not affect the phenotype at all, or are actually deleterious. It's then from this randomness that the filter of natural selection is applied which results in the propagation of the rare beneficial new genotypes. So you basically have both random and non-random components to the whole thing.