Careful observation and the scientific method lead to well-accepted theories like Newton's Theory of Gravitation and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. You'd expect the reverse to be true, but the Theory of Evolution is an exception showing that well-accepted theory doesn't always rest on good science.
Steve Passiouras in his post "not just a theory" does a great job in explaining what it means to be a theory in the world of science. Passiouras' gravity example is brilliant in its clarity:
"There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why.Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why."
When we let go of a thing, it falls downward. That and related observations are the facts in the matter. Our attempt at an explanation leads to a theory. Realizing that a force is involved, we give that force a name and call it "gravity". Our detailed explanation for how we believe that force operates becomes the Theory of Gravity.
Creation-believing scientists understand perfectly well -- and informed laypeople too -- that a scientific theory is a well-supported explanation for observations. We may argue that the Theory of Evolution fails to qualify as theory, but we do comprehend the term as it is used in the scientific community.
Passiouras goes on to draw analogy to evolution:
"Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution."
Care is needed from here forward in Passiouras' post. The term "evolution" is a label. What is the fact? What do we really observe? Passiouras answers in a footnote giving what he accepts as "a standard, scientific definition of evolution" from Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes in their textbook, Biology (W. H. Freeman, 1989):
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
The Curtis and Barnes definition is sound in the sense that we can observe precisely what the definition describes. An allele is "one of two or more versions of a gene" that might control attributes such as eye color, beak length, the lung-stamina of a race-horse, the milk-producing capacity of a cow.
Those raising animals for a living are well-versed in selection techniques for modifying the mix of alleles in their stock. Selection also occurs in response to events in nature and changing environments, and we term such as natural selection. Darwin wrote about natural selection, but was preceded by, and failed to give credit to, the creation-believing scientist Edward Blyth.
What does evolution really need? Paul Gosselin is a Social Anthropology expert specializing in belief systems. He tells tells it like it is in an email to me in November 2014:
"The real, critical claim made by evolution is that ALL biological organisms (living or extinct) came from dead matter and are all derived from one another in a line of common descent."
This total process has never been observed. It requires more than just shifting around of alleles that already exist in the gene pool, such as is done by horse breeders. Evolution from simple to complex life requires new alleles, and new information, and sometimes even additional cellular machinery by which to interpret and process the instructions in those new alleles.
No mechanism by which new information and cellular machinery can occur without a guiding intelligence has ever been observed. Evolutionists take it on faith that such things do occur, and thus the belief that life arose and developed from random chemicals is on its face a faith-based belief.
"Evolution" is not a fact. Changing alleles are what we observe. Evolutionists deceive and commit the Fallacy of Equivocation in pointing to change in allele frequencies, which does occur, and then claiming it as evidence for the creation of new information and cellular machinery, which does not occur.
Passiouras provides a clear and correct explanation of what a theory in science is intended to represent. Just keep in mind that the presence of a theory does not guarantee the underlying facts. The Theory of Evolution does not rest on careful observation and the scientific method, but on lies and deception. It is a placebo for those in rebellion.
Do you want to outright reject your Creator? That is unfortunate, and I wish you would reconsider. Do you want the truth? Are you honestly interested in the truth about origins and our possible destinations? Then I encourage you to examine the claims of evolution more deeply versus the history in Genesis. Ascertain for yourself which explanation you choose to believe and to hold as the guiding foundation for everything you are and think and do in your lifetime.