"but theorms can and still do get redefined as laws, but the evidence required restricts that from being an everyday event (as it should be)."

Recent example?

"In the case of evolution and ID, the origins cannot yet be verified by scientific method leaving some gray area that may forever keep both sides of the issue alive in the scientific mind.  To exclude a possibility before it is unproven is not good practice when doing research - at least as my expereince is concerned."

Sure, but the reason science folks get up in arms is that natural selection is NOT an origin theory.  It a theory that attempts (in concert with other biological theories) to describe the process of evolution we see today and we see in the fossil record.  From that understanding certain implications and questions arise if the process is followed all the way back in time as far as it will reach.  BUT, the life origin question is only an implication of natural selection--not the basis for it.  Make sense?  Kind of like studying a river for years, and wondering where it originates.  You can understand the system of a river very well without knowing the exact location of its ultimate origin.

There are certainly still huge questions about how life began on the earth, as most serious biologists will admit.  But scientists give less weight to supernatural origins because one of the founding assumptions of science is the constancy of phenomena (e.g. gravity works the same way now it did 2 billion years ago). In studies today they see no sign of the supernatural in the processes. So in the absence of counter-evidence they must assume that the physical and chemical properties and processes that are seen today were the same back then--nothing more, nothing less.  To go back to the river analogy, after studying a river for years, the scientific assumption would be that the processes where the river begins are the same processes that you observe where you study it--rain fall, ground water, etc.  And you'd be right.

They have not completely excluded any possibility. Again, note the word "theory"--science is acknowledging that even very well-supported ideas can possibly be disproven.  However they are also aware that it is a possibility for which no evidence has been found yet.

"Those that regard either as fact or neigher as theory are not doing justice to the system in place for determining what is truly the case.  Until the probability is 0% or 100% then completely discounting or approving either is shortsighted."

Again--theories can never be 100% proven in science, but that does not mean that they cannot be very well supported, predictive, and useful...or poorly supported, not predictive, and not useful.

"When it comes down to the nuts and bolts - does it really matter to anyone if an extra page or two is in a textbook saying that final proof is not yet established and there is a substancial number of people that believe this.....  It may just open a kids mind a bit to look at another side of any issue."

But kids aren't in science class to get their minds opened to alternate view points, they are in science class to learn science.  And in science, alternate viewpoints are accorded as much weight as the accumulated evidence that supports them.  It doesn't matter how many people believe them.  Science is not a democratic process and it is not a democratic institution.

Biology classes don't talk about unicorns or dragons either, despite the fact that millions of little kids believe in them and despite the fact that there is no way to conclusively rule out their existence.  

There are certainly places for learning to consider alternate viewpoints, but science class is not one of them.  Science provides a systematic way to test and rank possible answers to certain questions, and subverting that in the interest of political goals is wrong.