Yeah, I didn't really have a problem with the idea behind it other than the language is imprecise. Emphasizing that scientfic explanations is basically "the best we can come up with right now" is probably a really good thing to teach.
But, "Evolution" has been observed and is as such a scientific "fact". Saying, "Evolution is a theory" is just plain wrong. It may seem piddly, but if scientists didn't all speak the same language, nothing would ever get accomplished.
They should have said, "Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is just a theory" but it doesn't really have the same ring to it, heh.
And we should probably also say "theorem" instead of "fact"...
This reminds me of the global warming debate... the public spends its time arguing about global warming as a big political issue when it is in fact two separate questions: "is the earth warming" and "do humans have anything to do with that change?"
but you've got one side that says "polar ice is getting thinner so we have to stop burning fossil fuels" and another group who denies the evidence that the ice is thinning at all... when the truth may well be that the earth is in a warming cycle and there is nothing we can do about it.
"Intelligent Design" is observed on a daily basis and is as such a scientific "fact".
See how easy this is?
In fact, intelligent design changes allele frequencies on a daily basis. Does that fact make the ID theory a fact? No, of course not.
So if a school wanted to put a disclaimer in a science book stating that TOID is not a fact but a theory, no one should complain. Of course you don't except ID as a theory because like a lot of folks you live in denial. ID is getting ready to trump Darwin and you refuse to see it just like some folks refuse to see that mutations, selection and adaptation happens. Kind of funny actually.