This is a very well written and highly informative article, so congratulations @herpetologyguy. I'd just like to comment on a few things.

First of all, you say in your introduction that evolution is "wildly debated between different political, religious and scientific communities". This may be right regarding the first two, but within the scientific community, there is not much discussion at all regarding the foundational tenets of evolutionary theory. Most of the polemics is actually promoted by religious groups; almost no serious scientist contests the evolutionary framework.

You did well in clarifying the scientific meaning of a "theory". The only hard fact that exists in science (and anywhere else) is observational data. Models are built by proposing hypotheses that describe the data. As more and better data is collected, models are pushed to the limits of their predicting power, with only a few surviving this iterative testing process. In a gross sense, the fundamental framework underlying these surviving models is called a "theory". Theories will never be the same thing as facts, but that doesn't take away their credibility if they can be used to accurately describe a wide range of observed phenomena.

It is also very well pointed that "evolution doesn't strive for the most advanced form". Although there might be epigenetic factors contributing to the evolution of species, the large driving forces are a genetic variability and natural selection. The former occurs essentially in a random fashion, with each individual having a slightly different genetic configuration. Most of these genetic variations are either innocuous or even detrimental, but some of them might be beneficial for an individual's fitness. Over time, individuals with higher fitness have a greater chance at reproducing and passing on these beneficial traits. This is natural selection. But his process is mostly based on random variability, which does not point towards a more advanced form. Also, the advantages to the fitness are highly dependent on changes in the ecosystem. This means, as @herpetologyguy has very well said, that all living species have successfully adapted to survive in their respective ecosystems. To say that one is more advanced than the other is not a scientific or biological statement, but a value judgement.

I believe you mentioned only tangentially a misconception which I believe is one of the most common: that humans evolved from apes. Both humans and apes which are alive today constitute different branches of the taxonomic tree. What evolutionary theory says is that humans and apes have a common ancestor. This ancestor's appearance might have been closer to that of current apes than humans, but it was neither of them; it was actually another species. In fact, all living organisms are very likely to have had a common ancestor. The special thing about humans and apes is our genetic similarity, which means that our common ancestor lived much less time ago than the common ancestor between humans and, say, iguanas.

Again, I'd like to point out to @herpetologyguy that this is a truly fine article. Keep posting these!