Fair. I would prefer to say "the best fit to the facts so far."

Well no, actually. A theory does not attempt to fit facts. it attempts to provide a comprehensive explanation of the phenomenon that the facts belong to. A good theory would also allow predictions to be made about what new observations will reveal. It's true that a single finding could, in principle, nobble a theory. But that can no longer happen with the theory of evolution. The jigsaw is too massive and far too complete. Darwin's theory was simple and elegant (you could put the whole thing into a two-line sentence that an eight-year-old could understand). But every development in cell biology, physiology, palaeontology, embryology and genetics that has occurred since Darwin has triumphantly confirmed the theory. Evolution is an incontrovertible fact. If something pops up that shows we don't understand theprocess of evolution after all (next to impossible in that apocalyptic sense,, I'd say), then the theory is wrong only in the sense that our explanation is wrong. But the fact of evolution would survive all that unscathed. Why? Because evolution is true, that's why!