The "it's just a theory" argument

I've never personally run into this argument before; I guess it's because I've only tried to discuss religion and science with educated people, but recently this argument came up in a debate surrounding American presidential candidate Ron Paul and his refusal to "accept the theory [of evolution] as a theory".

Apparently, after discussing this topic with an anonymous reader online, I've come to realize that this is more common than I thought it was. So firstly, for those who are lost and aren't quite following the issue I'm addressing, let me briefly explain it.

There are people in the world who reject the theory of evolution simply because it is a theory that has not yet been proven. Usually these people are religious, and therefore their logic goes as follows, "The theory of evolution clearly contradicts my beliefs as a person of faith, but since the theory of evolution is only a theory and not a scientific fact, I am going to reject it and continue to believe in my faith."

What I say to these people is, "You are uneducated." However harsh that is to say to their face - it is true. Clearly these people do not understand what the theory of evolution is, and more importantly they do not understand the meaning of the words 'scientific theory'. So let me try and explain, exactly what is a 'scientific theory'.

The Random House Unabridged Dictionary states that a theory is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact". A scientific theory is more than just that, as it follows the scientific method. A scientific theory is not simply a person who proposes an idea and leaves that float there in the world for people to choose to believe in or not. A scientific theory goes through three very important stages of analysis: observation, proposal of a hypothesis and finally rigorous and communal testing.

This simply means that before a scientific theory is even called a 'scientific theory' hundreds of scientists (usually experts in the field) have observed and tested the theory under scrutiny. If it passes their review, it gets published in a scientific journal for everyone to test and investigate further. The only reason why at that point it is not called 'fact' is because science never likes to call something a fact unless there can simply be no other imaginable alternative.

At this time, let me put forward an example: the theory of gravity. This theory (and yes, it is a theory) states that all objects with mass attract one another. Certainly any educated person in this world accepts this theory as truth, although nobody has ever yet proven this to be as undeniable fact. The reason why people have accepted this theory as fact is because the evidence for it vastly outnumbers the evidence against it. And when I say 'vastly', I really mean it.

Well, the theory of evolution is no different. Yes - it is still a theory, and it is possible that there are alternatives, but the evidence for this theory to be truth is so great that to not accept it simply because "it's just a theory" is not only absurd, but childish.