You slam me for failing to provide where I get my information, but you provided some definitions and did not indicate where you got your information. But no matter. According to the definitions you provided evolution is neither a theory or a law.
It cannot be a "law" because it is not observable, obvious or undeniable. Evolution is not a theory, according to your definition, because it is not a testable explanation of how a phenomenon works.
So, if it is neither a theory or a law, hotshot, what is it and why should anyone care about it?
And tell me where you get your information next time.
"You slam me for failing to provide where I get my information, but you provided some definitions and did not indicate where you got your information. "
I didn't post a reference because I was posting something you should have been taught in gradeschool science class! But here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/topic/t-36163_What_is_the_difference_between_Theory_and_Law?.html
The second link to a publication by the National Academy of Sciences answers your other questions about evolution being called a 'law' or 'theory.' Note, this is not some partisan organization that supports evolution, this is the NAS, the most prestigious science institution in the US. Not just for evolution, all sciences.
Regardless, you don't know the difference between a theory in science and a theory in common conversation, but you are going to argue with the entire scientific community that evolution is not science?