I think this possibly belongs in the "Is It Sciece" thread.
Point 1)
"atheistic-evolution" -- since evolution doesn't say anything about the existance of God it is odd that you would glue these two terms together. I don't think even the atheisits say God *couldn't* have created the world as it is. They just don't believe that separately from any evolutionary questions. As you have suggested the two issues of evolution as mechanism for God (or not God) to get the world as it is today and the existance (or not) of God are separable questions and are kept separate in the mind of most scientists and religious believers.
Point 2)
I think you are saying that there are two main classes of things taken as assumptions: 1) laws of science and 2) logic
How are either of these simply assumptions? We test the "laws" of science (if by that you mean things like the conservation of energy/mass, general relativity and quantum mechanics ) all the time. In addtion, what would you suggest to replace "the laws of logic" whatever you mean by that?
I take it the existance of a God which has zero objective evidence is ok by you? How do you equate that to tested "laws"?
We test the laws you speak of by finding out how well our predictions stand up against the real world. They sure seem to be working awfully well so far. Got a better idea?
Point 3)
You seem to say in point 2 that it isn't allowed to use things which haven't been proven or tested or whatever. However, in theism it is ok to do exactly that. Fine! That is why your approach isn't science at all. It also doesn't seem to be useful in telling us anything about the natural world around us.
I think you will have to carry on and detail the metaphysics you are talking about. What you have above is only specifying the difference between science and religion. That is, one tries very hard to test and retest any of it's assumptions the other avoids that completly.