In scientific terms, a "theory" is a model or a description or explanation.
It doesn't presume to be a fact, and it's constantly open to revision based on new actual facts.
Using the layman's interpretation of "theory" to be the equivalent of "possible guess" is a semantic way of dissing the scientific process and what all scientific theories are.
Scientists would readily agree that a scientific theory is not a fact. Fact support theories, but they're two different concepts.
The sticker was a simplistic attempt to place scientific theory below actual fact, and that was dishonest. Facts lead to theories, not the other way around.
It really doesn't matter whether you can replicate evolution in a jar of fruit flies in two weeks. To argue against evolution using science as an argument is to be engaged full-time in rationalizing against the countless specimens in the fossil record, which generally involves believing all species on earth fit into an ark with one 18 inch window for ventilation.
It really comes down to a decision of whether you want to believe what you want to believe, or do you look at the facts and reach a conclusion based on them. I'd say that if you're spending your time trying to discount evidence, then you're headed toward believing what you want to believe.
Scientific theories are below actual facts.
Otherwise they would be called, well 'facts'.
To claim otherwise is dishonest.