The following is a copy and paste (excuse that, but if I just provide the link nobody looks it up) from a creationist website which recommends NOT to use this argument. There are still problems with the explanation, but there are at least some creationists telling others what a theory is.
Any creationist who uses this argument clearly reveals that they can't even research their own subject. I wish it would be obligatory reading, so we would be spared some of the dumbest questions.
What arguments are doubtful, hence, inadvisable to use?
“Evolution is just a theory.”
What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture.
· 1 decade ago