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.
Both IDers and Evolutionists are in the habit of using these definitions interchangably to make their points (I happen to believe bombastic Evolutionists started it all).
If the ToE can be paraphrased as "natural selection" + "lots of time" = "everything" then I would have to accuse it of being virtually non-disproveable. Which is not the same as being true.