Evolution: Just a Theory?

Terms used in an intelligent debate require mutual understanding for the conversation to have any value to both parties. In any discussion on evolution a certain phrase comes up in which there appears not to be mutual understanding. That phrase is "Evolution is only a theory." or "Evolution is just one theory."
Intelligent Design proponents toot this horn as often as they can. In some cases deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of the word theory to bolster their argument to an undereducated public.

Webster's online dictionary has no less than six definitions for the word theory.

1:the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2:abstract thought :speculation

3:the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory>

4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action theory that all children want to learn> b:an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -often used in the phrase in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5:a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena theory of light>

6 a:a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b:an unproved assumption :conjecture

c:a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject theory of equations>

The theory of evolution falls under definitions 1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another and 5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

The theory of evolution has been studied, by biologist, geneticist, anthropologist, geologist, archaeologists, paleontologists and a slew of other ologists. Since Charles Darwin published "On the Origins of Species" on November 24^th in 1859, an untold number of observations have been made, countless experiments have been done, and hundreds of thousands peer reviewed papers have been published. Meanwhile numerous new discoveries and whole disciplines of science have come into existence and none of them have ever once proven the theory false.

Biology Professor Theodosius Dobzhansky once said "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." In a paper with that same title he went on to say "A theory can be verified by a mass of facts, but it becomes a proven theory, not a fact. " and further "Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms."

When ID proponents refer to the theory of intelligent design they are using definition 6b an unproved assumption. Intelligent design offers no explanations, no scientifically derived hypothesis, no peer reviewed papers, basically no evidence in support of their speculation whatsoever.

A common practice by intelligent design funded scientist is to find an area of biology that requires further study and say it is a flaw in evolution. A prime example of this is Micheal Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. The basic thrust of the idea is this. Certain organisms have physical features that as a whole operate in such a way that if any piece were not there it would not function. Often cited is the example of Bacterial Flagellum, a sort of outboard motor found on some types of bacteria used for locomotion. Behe's conjecture is that this motor could not have any use except completely assembled and as such must have been designed. This specific example has already been debunked by scientist with far more letters after their name than I have by finding living bacteria with earlier stages of the flagellum with a smaller number of parts.

The key to handling these arguments for intelligent design is scientific study. It is the one area where Intelligent Design cannot compete. If they were to study what they believe are holes in Darwin's theory what they would find is that they only reinforce it. It is far easier and financially rewarding to stop when you find an apparent contradiction with Darwin, write a book and collect a check from the Institute of Creation Research, than it is to actually do the research, test your hypothesis and submit it for peer review.

In the recent Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case Behe testified under oath about his theories and Intelligent Design where he had no choice but to admit that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."

I wonder why that is, perhaps its only a theory (see definition 2).

Sources:
http://webster.com/dictionary/theory
http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf