Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe something starts as a hypothesis, meaning "I think this is true". Then if under the scientific method it is proved true it becomes a theory and from then on the theory is "Ok this is true, what more can we learn about it"?
Not quite. For example, the theory of general relativity spawned the hypothesis that clocks on a satellite in earth orbit would run faster because they're farther removed from earth's gravity. This was then tested and confirmed, which strengthened the theory of general relativity. A hypothesis doesn't "graduate" to become a theory, it (upon being tested) either supports a theory or indicates that a theory needs revision. Alternatively, a group of related, confirmed, hypotheses can be combined to form a theory. You don't typically get a single hypothesis that then becomes a theory, though. A hypothesis' scope is much more limited than that of a theory.
Similarly a theory never really "graduates" to the point that it can be described as a law. The use of the word "law" in the scientific sense is typically relates to an equation that describes the results of a theory. It actually does not imply that anything is more reliable, though. For example, Newton's laws of motion are flawed (confirmed predictions made by general relativity demonstrate this) but they're still taught in schools as a law. These laws come in the form of things like f=ma to describe how something responds to a force applied. Similarly the laws of gravity describe how much force is applied due to gravity in certain situations (as predicted by the theory of gravitation).
In my view, the theory of evolution and the theory of gravitation are on roughly similar footing. If you dispute one on the grounds of "it's just a theory" then you should be open to someone disputing the existence of gravity on similar grounds.