I will say it once more; evolution is a theory and belief.
Scientists are notoriously bad communicators, and they have indeed been inconsistent in their use of the word "theory."
However, when they speak properly, a theory is a
hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt. Relativity, Plate Tectonics, Evolution: all of these have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt by application of the
scientific method. This includes empirical observation, logical reasoning and peer review, in addition to its other less well-known principles such as Occam's Razor and the Rule of Laplace.
So, to come up with a term like "String Theory" is idiotic. This
hypothesis is nothing but theoretical mathematics augmented by arm-waving. Unfortunately blunders like this lead laymen to believe that a "theory" is merely hypothetical and may be overturned at any time.
Although the majority of us on SciForums are laymen, we are expected, at a minimum, to respect the
scientific method, which has been tested exhaustively (and often with great hostility) for half a millennium, and has never come close to being falsified. In other words, even the scientific method itself has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.
So when a hypothesis, like evolution, has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt and has taken its place in the canon of science, we are expected to use proper scientific terminology and refer to it as a
theory, not a belief.
Yes, "beyond a reasonable doubt" implies that there is always a slight chance that any scientific theory may be overturned in the future. However, this happens so rarely that the canon of science is never shaken to its roots; in fact theories are not so often falsified as simply
elaborated, the way Newton's Laws of Motion were elaborated into the Theory of Relativity, without falsifying the applicability of Newton's work in practical circumstances for creatures who will spend their entire lives in a planet's gravity well and never travel faster than a tiny fraction of the speed of light. Oh, and by the way, when a scientific theory is elaborated or falsified, it is
always by a great scientist, never by a layman. In other words, it takes an Einstein to find the flaws in the work of a Newton.
This is not the same as a "belief," which is nothing more than a hunch, or worse yet, a Stone Age parable that has been passed down for 300 generations without ever being critically examined--such as religion, just to pick an example at random.
Still, there are, broadly speaking, two types of belief. One is based on
rational faith. My wife has been kind, supportive, forgiving and faithful for 35 years. So it is
rational for me to
believe that she will continue to do so for another ten or twenty years until one of us dies; I have evidence to support my faith.
The claims of religionists and other crackpots are based on
irrational faith. They have no evidence to support it. Just wishful thinking, or reverence for the belief or their father, whose faith was based on reverence for the belief of his father... which goes back to some caveman whose father had a brain fart and woke up believing in gods and demons and people who rise from the dead.