Oh, it's just that we haven't had time to stop beating our wives lately.
I think you will find that most knowledgeable evolutionists "pass along" theory as theory and fact as fact. The distinction is actually important to us, as the very purpose of a scientific theory is to explain facts, and the role of facts is to test theories. We are therefore eager to point out the large arrays of facts (patterns of both genetic and morphological similarities, patterns of biogeographical distribution, the temporal ordering and sequential appearances and disappearances of fossil organisms in the geological column, observations of in situ speciation and evidence of historically recent speciation events, etc, etc) that are non-gratuitously explained only on the assumption of common descent. We are also happy to point out that evolution is incompatible with many otherwise plausible facts (29 Evidences for Macroevolution provides surveys of both facts uniquely explained by evolution, and potentional falsifications) and that, like other genuinely scientific theories, it is thereby vulnerable to many possible falsifications, but has withstood these tests.
Finally, we evolutionists tend to find it is creationists who have faulty, simplistic, incoherent or (quite often) pathological misunderstandings of the relationship between theories and facts.
The BS-o-meter just ran off the charts here! C'mon, now. Be honest. You know fully well that evolution is not taught as theory in our schools. You know that. It is taught as fact. Therefore, it can not be that important to you, for if it were, you'd make sure that the theory would be taught as theory. But such is not the case.
. . .like other genuinely scientific theories, it is thereby vulnerable to many possible falsifications, but has withstood these tests.
The same can be said for the Bible. What's your point? In fact, the Bible has worn out many hammers. It is not changing, yet your theory changes rapidly. Hmmm. . .
Finally, we evolutionists tend to find it is creationists who have faulty, simplistic, incoherent or (quite often) pathological misunderstandings of the relationship between theories and facts.
Nice backhanded slap, dude. Again (for the umpteenth time on this thread alone which no one seems to even want to acknowledge), faith is faith. You must believe, otherwise it falls apart. But you are telling a bald-face lie (not surprising given your belief in evolution) when you say that we have the problem with the terms "theories" and "facts." Not one scientist can say unequivocally that evolution is absolutely true. No matter how many fossil records you have, the "truth" of evolution can't be claimed. According to your so-called facts, evolution can be suggested. But suggestion and absolute proof are not close to each other. They don't compliment each other, either. And since it can not be claimed empirically, it is a theory.
I never knew that so many on the right of the political spectrum were evolutionists. This is scary. You guys attack people of faith just as much as those on the looney left do. So, in my mind, you both are the exact same.
Nice company. Keep them, please.
One last thing before I go. Why did the entire process of evolution theory begin with the premise that God does not exist? In other words, who ya foolin'? The entire discipline began with the answer it sought, and fashioned its evidence to "prove" that claim.