Since I would have voted "none of the above", I'll take that one.
Basically, I don't understand the point of all of the debate over it. By definition, Evolutionary THEORY is not proven. I would suggest that if we wanted to be completely rigorous about definitions, you might only really be able to call it the Hypothesis of Evolution. There are two reasons I say that: 1) too many personal reputations and preconceived notions have driven the research, and 2) there is no way to gather conclusive proof in sight.
That said, there is plenty of room for speculation. If you want to believe that God created the world, and used Evolution as a tool to do so, I don't see how anyone could rule that out... but it's not science. If you want to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, well... watch out for the pirates. I think there is room for intelligent design within the realm of science if evidence comes up that can support it. But that hasn't happened, yet.
And since most people using the term seem to think that popular support for the idea that "someone" might have caused the universe gives them the right to use Intelligent Designtm as a tool for some kind of political gain... I won't sign on with that team, either. It might be fun to speculate about it, but it shouldn't drive public education policy, especially at a time when we are so lacking in critical thinking skills as it is.
But what bothers me about all of the yelling is this: does it really matter how we got here, or what each of us believes about it? This issue is such a small part of what science is about, and yet, we've wasted how many decades arguing about it? I think everyone needs to unbend about the whole thing and work on problems that can reasonably be solved in our lifetimes.
Like how to grow a prehensile tail... I could USE one of them!