I think the main reason people have these kinds of questions is that they don't adequately define their terms. Sometimes a dictionary just isn't enough, you need an encyclopedia. Basically, we are lazy and let others define things for us, and allow the propaganda from media to seep in.
Evolution fits the definition of a historical theory (not a scientific theory): "an explanation of past events based on the interpretation of evidence that is available in the present."
You see, Darwinian Evolution is: "an explanation of the past", and can only ever be an OPINION. The past cannot be "known" or measured. Only evidence today can be measured in the present, the past can ONLY be inferred, not measured or viewed and inspected directly. So in historical terms, evolution is a theory, but in scientific terms, evolution is NOT a theory; it relies on the assumption of naturalism, and when applied to geology, it relies heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, and when applied to science in general, it assumes materialism. The evolutionists must assume everything about the past. If evolution is an assumed OPINION, it cannot possibly be a "fact"; would that be an oxymoron or an absurdity?
A historical claim only requires OPINION. A scientific claim REQUIRES evidence by burden of proof, or fails automatically. Empirical science can confirm and prove their assumptions with empirical evidence in the present. Historical science and evolution cannot.
Real science that makes incredible discoveries like DNA and vaccines and produces all our new gadgets and computers and counts atoms and takes us to the moon is called operational or observational science, sometimes called empirical science. For anything to come under the umbrella of the scientific method, it must be observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. The evolutionary model cannot be placed in this framework. For example, one cannot design an experiment to test evolutionary ideas.
Science sinks or swims on evidence.. Evolution is more buried in propaganda, fraud and known errors than any empirical evidence. The real sad part of it is known errors and frauds that remain in school text books decades and even centuries after they have been revealed as errors or frauds.. for this reason the notion that evolution is science or scientific is laughable.
When I say evolution is not a valid scientific theory, I'm saying there is no viable, credible, accurate, verifiable, testable, reproducible scientific evidence for evolution conforming to empirical scientific method and burden of proof.
Evolution is so plastic and changing and evolving, it can EXPLAIN anything. Since Darwin we have volumes and tome's of changes made to evolution every week. Yet what does evolution really say? What survives, survives... apart from the obvious tautology do you really need to take a class to figure that out? A true atheist cannot account for uniformity in nature at all (the basis by which we can do real science)
Evolution is really meaningless to most fields of science including most biological disciplines. What use does evolution really have? It provides atheists with the ability to pretend to be scientific. Beyond that it is really useless noise and has no real place in any science curriculum.
Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not. [Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland].
In conventional science the minimum standard for evidence to assert a valid theory is 'Empirical Evidence', that means observed in nature or experimentally and reproducible. Yet there is not documented a single case of the formation of one genus or family being formed from another genus or family at any level of the taxonomic tree either in nature or the lab. Put simply there is no empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution. The best you have is inference, most of the 'mountain of evidence' is anecdotal or circular reasoning and almost all of the evidence can be explained in terms that do not require the assumption of evolution, and so evolution can be shaved off as an unnecessary assumption by Ockham's razor.
In the field of real science, Darwinian Evolution fails to meet the minimum criteria for Fact, Theory or Law and so is none of the above. It is merely a fabricated model; a good story from OPINION.
It amazes me that the militant atheists charging in here have not a clue what they are vehemently defending or why, or how, without a speck of evidence. Why? Because their brittle OPINION has been offended, and their entire life would be laid barren of OPINION; quite an investment in a falsity, a lie, and thus the contradicted life of an atheist.
But atheists confuse the facts and misrepresent the truth in fact, when they try to find "facts" which can support their ideas and when these ideas cannot be proven they generate some other reason which cannot be proven to support their delusional fact. Certainly there have been changes to species but there is no satisfactory proof of evolving into another.
Those saying evolution is a fact are confused and generally point to natural selection. Natural Selection alone is insufficient to result in Darwinian evolution, which requires Common Descent.
Despite the claims of evolution, the appearance of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, pesticide resistance, and sickle-cell anemia are not evidence in favor of evolution. They do, however, demonstrate the principle of natural selection acting on existing traits, the Creation model using many of the same principles, something we agree on. But as a result of the Curse, genetic mutations, representing a loss of information, have been accumulating, but these do not cause new kinds or a new genus to emerge.
There is no current explanation or hypothetical mechanism for Darwinian Evolution that has not been discredited by observation or experimentation..