In scientific terms of art, this is simply not true.
The idea that man would die if he travelled faster than sound was a* hypothesis*, not a theory.
Yes, in vitro synthesis of DNA from its nucleotide building blocks is quite routine nowadays, there are specialised companies where you can order DNA. There are computer controlled machines that synthesise DNA nucleotide by nucleotide according to a specified sequence, without the need of a template strand (See wikipedia article on artificial gene synthesis). The main problem is to synthesise large stretches of DNA without too many errors. To synthesise the nucleotide building blocks from scratch (from inorganic compounds) would be possible, but tedious and expensive.
If the synthetic DNA contains the appropriate control sequences, it can serve as a template for the enzymes that transcribe it into RNA, which in turn can be translated by ribosomes.
Evolution is currently both a fact and a theory.
It is a FACT that evolution clearly happened. Anyone who looks at the evidence without being in complete denial of reality, including the fossil record and vast amounts of population genetic data, can see that life forms have obviously evolved over time, and that the life today is the end result of billions of years of evolution.
The THEORY of evolution explains HOW and WHY that evolution happened, and includes features such as natural selection and mutation. “Theory” does NOT imply that we don’t have it all figured out yet, or that there’s something still missing. It simply means that it is an explanation for all the facts, rather than the facts themselves. Theories can and must be able to change as new data arises, because a theory must account for ALL of the data. The current theory of evolution does indeed account for each and every single one of all of the trillions and trillions of pieces of data that we have collected, which is a DAMNED impressive achievement. If and when new data emerge that change the picture slightly, we may need to tweak the theory a bit to account for it - perhaps selection will turn out to be a bit stronger than we thought, or maybe we’ll discover a new mechanism for genetic drift, that sort of thing. But it’s exceedingly unlikely at this point that any data will be generated or discovered that will change the theory in any substantial way. A massive change in the theory would require a massive change in the facts that it’s based on, and we’ve now compiled a pretty damn good set of facts.