On the contrary.
The beginning of the discussion of the meaning of “theory” was the assertion by a believer in evolution that adherents of “Intelligent Design” were using the term to say that evolution had not been proved. Ergo: evolution is a “theory” not a “fact.”
Well, if we use the common vernacular, is evolution an indisputable fact, like gravity, the atom, or that germs cause disease? I would assert that even adherents of evolution, if they were speaking perfectly objectively, would state that it appears to be the best explanation of how animals and plants developed to their modern form.
It is the nature of most modern scientist to be naturalistic, that is, to assume at the outset that God does not exist and that there is not – and never has been – an agent that has affected the universe from outside of space and time (i.e. God). Assumption number 1 is: assume no God. I maintain that this is not a scientific fact, simply a modern prejudice.
Absent such an outside agent, evolution seems to be a reasonable explanation of some of the bones, imprints and artifacts that have been uncovered that are of great age.
I view evolutionary theory like a huge puzzle with an incredible number or pieces. Darwin has provided the big picture you get on the outside of the puzzle box. And all of the pieces we find we are trying to place so that they correspond to the picture. Of course there are huge gaps and pieces that don’t seem to fit. There are even pieces that we made up out of cardboard and paint to fit into a particular place – until someone found us out and made us take the fake pieces out.
But suppose, just suppose, that Darwin’s picture is wrong? The puzzle is really not a picture of a mountain scene on the cover of the box, it’s really a puzzle picture of a horse. That would be a great big cosmic joke on naturalists, wouldn’t it?
Wouldn’t it be more open minded if our scientists began their theories, not with proposition #1: assume no God; but with the proposition that included the possibility of a creator?
We are still dealing in theories here, but we could then get into a more genteel hair pulling contest among scientists.