Sorry Vuk, the discussion got into I.D. so fast I missed the earlier comment on the teacher's behavior. My bad.
Quote Originally Posted by Vuk
And yes, evolution IS a theory. You obviously do not know much about it. Ask any scientist, evolution has not YET become a law, but is still a theory.
In the scientific sense, being a theory is far from a bad thing. It's the only thing:

Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows:
  1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
  2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
  3. Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
  4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
  5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
  6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
  7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later describe such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.").

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

The difference between science and unscientific nonsense was well caught in Wolfgang Pauli's famous comment on a paper he was shown: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong."