Yeah. I know. Everyone in the world that cherishes Scientific fact over theories are idiots and beneath you elitists. Sorry! Maybe you will have mercy on those of us less evolved than you eh?!
It is not a matter of selecting one over the other. Both facts and theories are required in order to do science.
I think Heinlein may have expressed this 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.
Expanded Universe: The New Worlds of Robert A. Heinlein, 1980, pp. 480-481
Well, yeah, actually. "Cherishing" fact over theory is a bit idiotic. So is "cherishing" theory over fact. Either is at least as idiotic as criticizing a car mechanic for (supposedly) "cherishing" wrenches over screwdrivers, or vice versa. Or maybe hand tools over engine hoists would be a better example.
In any case, whether wrenches vs screwdrivers or hand tools vs engine hoists, both are necessary to rebuild an engine. By the same token both facts and theories are necessary to do science. They're just different kinds of things is all. Facts (and laws) are descriptive, whereas theories are explanatory.
The job of a scientific theory is to explain facts. (And the job in turn of scientific facts is to test theories.) Furthermore the requirements of a scientific theory are such that the explanations provided must be non gratuitous (not ad hoc and based on the consequences of the theory's model or mechanisms) and that a given theory must explain at least some facts that are not accounted for by previous or would-be-competing theories. So theoretical explanations must be non-gratuitous, specific, and in at least some cases unique. Therefore the facts explained by a theory (at least those not accounted for equally well by other theories) must also constitute evidence for the theory.
This is why your previous reference to evolution as a "theory," but one for which there is "NO evidence," is so nonsensical. It's equivalent to saying evolution is a theory which explains nothing. But a theory that explains nothing is not a theory.
The problem here is obvious. You think facts are "good" and theories are "bad". Again this is just like (and just as idiotic as) saying that wrenches are "good" and screw drivers are "bad" wrt to the needs of mechanic. Or like saying that apples are "good" and oranges are "bad," and etc.