Um, reread the article. The author is trying to make a more rigorous definition of "theory" and saying evolution doesn't measure up to the new definition.
It is true the author is using a play from the Left's playbook, though.
No, the author is plainly pointing out that the definition does not and never has supported the position that science has taken with evolution as regards the word "theory". He is noting specifically that they are trying to redefine the word in order to move the goal posts on responsibility and proof.
Like it or not, you have to prove your case. Beg off if you want, it only hurts your case. Bottom line, with nothing but hot air, you can't win.