@fredsbend Yes, there is a difference between history and science. However, even your link for scientific theory there is a picture of Charles Darwin among the "scientists who laid the foundations for several important scientific theories".

The same article includes a quote from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, stating, "The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

If you want to redefine science to eliminate the theories of gravity and evolution, you'll have to take it up with the scientific community.

The major failing of the scientific community, in my opinion, is calling Evolution a theory of science equal with gravity, et al. They are apples and oranges. That is why I came up with the distinction of evolution (little e), which is science, and Evolution (big E), which is history. I do not wish to remove any theory with this distinction.

Evolution (big E) is in no danger of being dismantled because of this distinction. The distinction is being mentioned here to keep the debate on track: is Evolution supported well enough to be a valid historical theory? I have concluded no and subsequently chose YEC as a viable alternative. Time permitting, I will post my major issues with the Theory of Evolution and would love to hear rebuttals.