[Coyoteman]

There is no higher category for a theory to go in science.

Certainly there is. It is called a "scientific law", and is defined as "a statement describing an observed regularity." It is only when a statement of science reaches such a level that it represents scientific fact.

A law in science only describes something, it does not explain it. That is left to theory.

Your search for "scientific fact" is leading you to a mass of unorganized and unexplained data. But, Heinlein said it best:

Piling up facts is not science--science is facts-and-theories. Facts alone have limited use and lack meaning: a valid theory organizes them into far greater usefulness.

A powerful theory not only embraces old facts and new but also discloses unsuspected facts [Heinlein 1980:480-481].

[RightWingAtheist]

Ah yes, that came from his splendid essay on Paul Dirac.

[js1138]

Heinlein may have said it, but he wasn't first...

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember some one saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!

Guess who.

[Old_Mil]

Definition of a scientific theory (emphasis mine): "A proposed model, explanation or description of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation."

So clearly, if you want to play the dictionary game, evolution doesn't rise to the standard of a scientific theory but is more accurately characterized as a hypothesis.