From this article which I recommend anyone who does not know what theory actually means reads.

Everything becomes clear if you assign their proper meanings to words like "theory", "law" etc. in a scientific context. In particular "theory" is not an insult (as in the silly saying "it's just a theory"). A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment.

By assigning these values, in a scientific context as they suggest, we can readily see that while gravity is indeed a theory, we can also rely on it to be true until disproved by experiment. Note, not by argument, opinion or any amount of philosophical discussion, but by experiment. By the same measure, evolution, while remaining a theory, can also be considered true.

I consider evolution to be the best theory available of how we got here. Until this theory is disproved by experiment I will also consider it to be true. Pretty much like gravity. Until someone proves it is not true and we all float off I will consider the theory of gravity to be true as well :-)

The final paragraph says If you were to insist at all times on "the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in a scientific context, you'd never be able to make any meaningful statement (unless accompanied by the relevant "margin for error"). As a consistent body of knowledge, each theory allows you to make such statements freely, knowing simply that the validity of your discourse is only restricted by the general conditions of applicability of a particular theory.

In that context, we can safely say that evolution is true with a tiny margin for error while, in a scientific context, creationism is not even a theory, can never be disproved by experiment and can never have any margin for error.

DtG