That's why the only prediction of evolution is: Things will change...no wait, they can't even say that - I suppose the only "prediction" is: Things changed?!?!?
If we know so much about this process (millions of fossils and peer reviewed articles and scientists named Tom, Dick and Harry) why can we not make a new species prediction (hypothesis) regarding the process and then test it (experiment)? We already know that you can have varieties of cats and dogs and virus strains and Christmas...er...Winter Holiday trees...now let's see the friggin' Winter Holiday cat.
The Theory of Evolution (capitalized, indicating a proper noun as it is the name of a specific thing) is a repeatedly demonstrated, scientifically accurate explanation of the evidence and data concerning the historical development of life on Earth. It is not a fact in itself, but rather an explanation of the facts. Thus the statement 'the Theory of Evolution is a theory and not a fact', while a bit misleading in the implied definition of the word theory, is a factually true statement.
Conversely, evolution (not capitalized, indicating a common noun as it is not the name of a specific thing) is the phenomena of change that a population experiences over time. This is a fact that has been observed, and is but one of the many pieces of evidence used by the Theory of Evolution.
As you can see, there is a distinct difference between the two. However, you are deliberately using one in place of the other (equivocation) to support your argument.
The irony comes into play when you consider that ID supporters and Creationists routinely accuse Evolutionists of equivocating the word 'evolution':
Miller, as usual with evolutionary propagandists, equivocates about the meaning of ‘evolution’, i.e. calling any change ‘evolution’ and implying that it proves particles-to-people evolution and disproves special creation. Of course, creationists make it very clear that particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information content. To date, not a single example of such a change has been observed, but such changes should be plentiful if evolution were true. (Emphasis attributed to source.)
~Miller’s mangled arguments, by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati, as published on Answers in Genesis website
Note that the above accusation isn't that Miller used evolution in place of the Theory of Evolution, but rather that his definition (to which they added their own inference) didn't match their nonstandard one.
Okay, that's all I got. If you still don't get what I was trying to say then we're pretty much not going to get any further.