If were talking my personal beliefs I believe god designed evolution and created some species directly and let others be created by evolution.

Then how is it that every species is part of the same family tree? We should have some starting on a separate tree if that were the case. There's no evidence at all that there should be more than one tree, and there is genetic evidence that all current known forms of life branched from the same root. Unless you're just saying he guided some branches. That's fine to believe, as long as you remember that there's not any evidence for it. Heck, I don't mind that some people choose to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. They're free to believe it. It's the trying to force it on others that I despise.

I am just saying its impossible to "prove" large scale (calling it 'macro' is easier until you people get into semantics) evolution or the progression from basic cells capable of replication to complex organisms because we can't directly observe it.

You "prove" large scale evolution by studying genetics, DNA markers, fossils, etc. If we're talking humans specifically, here is as good a place as any to start. Just be sure to always follow the citations. (I can give you links to better explanations and evidence for just general evolution, or whatever else, if you would like, and talkorigins.org is a fantastic resource for researching the issue of creation vs. evolution and where the evidence lies)

Evolution, large scale or small, isn't just a guess. It's based on mountains of evidence. If the theory were thrown out, its replacement would still have to account for all of the fossil record, genetic record, and all of the other non-direct evidence that currently supports it, let alone account for the direct observation of changes.

Now, if you believe that a god, or gods, or aliens, or whatever directed evolution, fine! Believe that all you want. But to ask anyone else to believe it, and especially to teach it in schools, you need evidence (testable, repeatable, and verifiable) to back that idea up. The reason I've never had any issue whatsoever with someone believing that? Because they don't try to legislate what is taught in a science classroom based on their (misguided and ill-informed) beliefs about one biological theory.

Currently, creationists (the Young Earth kind) are completely skipping the need for evidence, and relegating everything to the realm of "belief". That's what they think the theory of evolution is supported with. That's why it's often called "Darwinism". Because they view it as a competing religious belief that they have to fight in the courtrooms, not as an extremely well supported scientific theory that they would have to fight through peer review.

The theory of evolution is arguably the best supported scientific theory. Better than the theory of gravity, better than atomic theory, better than the big bang theory, etc. Just remember that when it comes to the theory of evolution, it's no different than the other scientific theories out there: they all have to be very well supported by evidence. And while they're always able to be thrown out in the future based on new evidence (falsifiability is a wonderful thing), by the time they reach the status of theory it's very unlikely that they will be. On the other hand, if you do happen to overturn a theory, especially one as famous and well supported as evolution, you will become famous overnight, you will probably end up being incredibly rich, and you will be remembered throughout history (on the same terms as Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc). Makes you wonder why (again, specifically the Young Earth type) creationists haven't tried that route, doesn't it?