There is no specific definition for "scientific theory" in the dictionary. If you think scientific theory is something more than an educated guess based on imperfect information, then I don't think you really understand the field of science. Science is a flawed study. It is not perfect, and a lot of its theories are flawed and not true. That is what is being glossed over here in this debate. Science is not perfect and it does not explain everything and a lot of what it has explained (in theories) is wrong, just as history has shown over and over again.
Science is, and has been, revised conclusions from observable facts, experiments and hypotheses.
Science is the best tool mankind has and will ever have.
My goodness you are a slow learner. The whole buiness of science is to keep improving its understanding. The process is iteartive.
But you are covertly implying something that simply isn't true. You are implying that everything is science is mush and it will all have a completely different shape tomorrow. the actual progress of science is more like a pixel fade, in which things are seen with more and more detail as the resolution deepens.
Gravity was first explored by Galileo, who made some decent quantitative observations; then by Kepler who discovered that orbits were best described as eliptical; thne by Newton, who foune formulae that perfectly describe the motions of objects at familiar distances and speeds; then by Einstein who extended the theory of gravity to deal with extreme velocities. We do not yet have a comprehensive theory of gravity, but what we have learned has not contradicted Galileo; it has just improved the resolution of the image.
The same applies to biology. Current research is improving our understanding of life, but it is not contradicting the basic picture discovered by Darwin. It is just adding more detail.
It is fantasy to believe that the age of the earth will suddenly be found to be a few thousand years, or that living things are not related by descent.
Enough already! From the first & original 1828 Webster's Dictionary:
THE'ORY, n. [L. theory; Gr. to see or contemplate.]
1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.
2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.
3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.
4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.
Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena. (emphasis mine)
Even before Darwin; even before the ToE (that's not exactly true - there were Newtonian evolutionists too), there was a rather firm understanding of the meaning of 'theory' when used in a scientific context, as you can plainly see from Mr. Webster's efforts on the matter. Why you cannot come to grips with this simple understanding is beyond me.
Now, you've irritated not only every evolutionist on this board, but you've irritated this flinty old Presbyterian to boot. And, to what end? If you feel you have to bicker over the meaning of 'theory', an understanding that has existed literally for hundreds of years, then I cannot see the point of any further communication between you and anyone else on this board.