I think it is a great mistake to believe that science equals athiesm.

Indeed. Science need not concern itself over-much with religion at all. That's the way ahead. If only religion would stop fretting about science, that would be brilliant.

Einstein ("I am definitely not an atheist", Darwin ("I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist" are two highly respected scientists I gave earlier in this thread (or the other delusion one) who at least questioned.

So what? Their opinions on religion are no more than slightly interesting. It is outside their spheres of work. I expect their opinions on the best way to put up kitchen shelves would be mildly interesting too. I doubt that either Darwin or Einstein would admire you much for putting them on pedestals for their religious views. There's a website somewhere that lists hundreds of eminent scientists who are avowed atheists. That isn't particularly interesting either.   

It seems odd to me that some will use evolution for example as positive proof that there is no God

I don't know of any who use evolution in this way (and good scientists will seldom, if ever, claim "proof" for no God in any case). However, the uncomfortable fact for believers is that natural selection does, at best, make God entirely redundant. It explains the whole of life on Earth is all its beauty and complexity entirely within the laws of physics, without the need for divine interventions of any kind, and is coming very close to elucidating the origin of life similarly. When you think about it, natural selection is probably a very good bet for explaining life wherever it pops up in the universe. God is just twiddling his thumbs on the sidelines, I'm afraid.