[Reuben Hick]

For a hypothesis to become a theory it must go through a demanding set of processes. Scientists try to tear it to pieces by finding logical or evidentiary errors.

So you agree that since Evolution has legions of logical and evidentiary errors that it is overly charitable to call it "Theory"?

[Thatcherite]

For a hypothesis to become a theory it must go through a demanding set of processes. Scientists try to tear it to pieces by finding logical or evidentiary errors.

So you agree that since Evolution has legions of logical and evidentiary errors that it is overly charitable to call it "Theory"?

For the benefit of the lurkers I will explain your joke, just in case they think you have made a telling point:

I didn't explain that if scientists are able to find logical or evidentiary errors in the hypothesis then it doesn't get accepted as a theory. This was so obvious that it didn't need saying. You humorously chose to interpret this backwards.

Scientific hypotheses have passed this test and moved a step closer to becoming theories when scientists cannot find logical errors or evidentiary conflicts in them. The theory of evolution has passed this test and all the others that I mentioned in my OP. Scientists have not been able to find any logical or evidentiary errors in it.