Anything that can be proven, but we aren't able to at the moment (due to technological reasons) should be considered unknown. But things that can never be proven, like the existence of a deity or deities, should not be considered fact because it can never be put to the test.

If we're talking about scientific work then I agree. However, attempting to apply the same scientific rigor to everyday decision making is as ridiculous as it is hypocritical. The potential of intuition should be recognized and used. Pattern matching and intuitive techniques is what allowed human chess players to consistently win against alogrithms which calculated every move. The complexity in chess grows exponentially with each move which makes such an approach computationally expensive. The break through was adding a database of preset solutions for specific situations, much like what real chess players do. Well, religion is not unlike this, in that it offers you intuitive solutions to complex life problems. Everything else being equal, a society with religion should outperform one without.

Agnostics are fence sitters, they're too afraid or ignorant to to either believe or not believe.

There's no difference between a theist, an agnostic and an atheist in terms of being able to objectively prove their position. Why such hostility towards agnostics, specifically?

The origins of man, or how the physical world operates is a natural thing. Theology and philosophy aren't sciences, they are more broad than that. Philosophers and scientists have tried to explain natural phenomena using rational arguments, but they are only arguments. You can't prove anything with philosophy or theology.

Not true, both religion and science use logic to test the validity of ideas. An experiment is just a data sample. What you prove or disprove is the hypothesis.

The only way to know the origins of man is through science and patience.

I commend you on your unwavering faith in science. :)