However, I must point out one flaw in the arguments of my side. The stating of the fact that evolution is only a theory. Well, general relativity is also a theory. What many us would call theories are actually in science hypothesises. A hypothesis must go vigorous testing before it can become a theory. That is all.
Quite right. Stuff like this goes hypothesis->theory->law. Hypothesis only has a few observations to back it up, but nothing completely solid and little if any study done. Theory has a larger number of observations and study to indicate it is at least partially correct. Law has had enough done to where it can be certain all aspects of it are correct.
There was the law of gravity, but it got bumped down to theory because we don't understand fully it's mechanics and effects in certain situations(moving close to light speed or ultra-high gravity, if I'm not mistaken). So, gravity is only a theory. 
It's even more complicated than this. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a hypothesis supported by testing would be called laws. Even some purely mathematical derivations would be called laws. The most prominent example is probably Newton's laws of motion and gravity.
In the nineteenth century the use of language evolved and the preferred term for a tested hypothesis or rigorous mathematical statement of physical law was the theory, from the same root as theorem. For example Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and Einstein's theory of relativity had as much basis in testing as did Newton's laws in the earlier century. The only difference was the use of language. We still speak of theoretical physics, but mean that branch that primarily deals in the mathematical proofs and solutions pertaining to physical problems. These theories are often more rigorous than the old "laws".
Interestingly, in the late twentieth century there seems to be another language change. It is common to find model used to describe a scientific description. As an example, the Standard Model is used to describe the behavior of fundamental subatomic particles, but is based on the same solid mathematical foundation as earlier theories might have been.
Whether it is a law, theory, or model, science recognizes that new data can cause old ideas to be extended into new areas. This may appear as if science is repudiating an earlier work. More often we find that we considered too limited a part of the universe in the first place. For example, Newton's and Maxwell's works still stand as critically important to describe the vast majority of phenomena we encounter. Yet Einstein realized that these two works contradicted each other in certain cases, especially with electrons at very high speed. The result was his work on Special Relativity that celebrates its 100th anniversary this year.
