"Since evolutionism relies largely upon unobserved, unrecorded history, I tend to place it under the latter meaning."
Then your understanding of the evidence for evolution is sadly lacking. You may wish to review the evidence, starting with Darwin's observations, before rejecting them out of hand.
The scientific community has approached the theory with great skepticism. The fact that it is a "theory" at all shows how strong the evidence is for it - it's the only theory that fits.
It's not so much my lack of understanding of the evidence for evolution as it is your incapacity to recognize and acknowlege the fact that you subscribe to a set of assumptions under which any evidence can be catalogued as supportive, and therefore "scientific."
A pile of evidence does not make for good science. Direct observation, testing, and repeated testing does. In that regard evoltuionism is SOL. Tell your friends at Harvard and see if they'll listen.
It is by no means a fact that evolutionism is a "theory" in the scientific sense. It is a fact that a great number of would-be scientists wish dearly it were so. Wishes, no matter how well educated, resourceful, and eloquent, do not make for sound science. Neither does creationism.