[Adder]

This is good. Except for the "protocell" thing, which is a hypothesis.

The whole point I was trying to make is that if ID decided to say "God made the protocell" it would be as valid a hypothesis since it's a bit simpler than an oily bilayer with water and other elements inside spontaneously living. It's easier to understand and does not violate on of the key doctrines of biology, that "life does not come spontaneously from non-life".

Nothing can be proven, since proof exists only in mathematics.

This I also accept. Math is the only truth since numbers don't change and are completely devoid of the need of an observer (3 is 3, even if your not looking at it the right way).

Theories are only considered false if they have been falsified... There are hardly any examples of competing theories currently in modern science (at least, none that many people will have heard of).

String theory vs. "classical" quantum mechanics re the graviton.
...yeah, I see your point.

Science cannot require belief. The moment you invoke anything that requires anything more than observation, you have left science.

Exactly. But, since only math has proof and everything else is theory or hypothesis, how can I use theory to explain things scientifically? Surely I have to assume the theory is true. I have to accept/believe the theory. Or, I have to assume it is not true and find a new theory/belief.
I would say accepting any scientific theory as "true" is believing science. Not accepting new theories which go against the old ones occurs where scientists hold beliefs (best example: Einstein and quantum mechanics)

QTF

Fail. The idea that I science should force people to accept it is just as stupid as the idea that creationists should force people to accept ID. Leave faith alone, unless it's being forced down your throat or into your kids.

RE: Quartz
That is classic psychosomatic medicine. You perceive an effect that you assume to be the quartz, but that does not make it so.

True, but simple experimentation will show ME that the quartz needs to be there for any affect to be perceived. The assumption appears valid. The Null Hypothesis that "Quartz helps" is held.
Again, it is impossible for this to be considered science. As you said yourself, it is "faith". The idea I was trying to get across is that it is not blind faith. A colour-blind person may believe the sky is green. This would not be based on blind faith, but their personal observation. In both cases the observation may be flawed, but the belief (which by definition isn't science-based, but more based on observation) is based on SOMETHING. It is not blind faith.
People who say they've spoken to Jesus might honestly believe they have (and since you weren't there you can't be sure they have not, even though it's extremely unlikely). They do not need blind faith if they think (or have) spoken to a higher power calling itself JC.

It's not really a science, it's more of a belief.
Same with gravity.

Um... gravity exists. It's observable, calculable (to a degree) and we've a reasonable idea that it's caused by matter. The nitty-gritty stuff (i.e. the graviton) is still heavily theory {there's 2 big competing theories at least right now}. It is not a belief... unless you choose to believe one of the theories over a different one... or if you believe it's a pulling force, since it appears to be more of a pushing one.