The Current Theory of Evolution is a Scientific Theory

Hello! Recently evolution has come under fire from religious groups, particularly Young Earth Creationists, that attempt to disprove evolution. Specifically, their efforts appear to be focused in discrediting evolution as a scientific theory and classifying it as a belief. I am creating this debate with the users CreationGuy or Cook123 in mind, but I would be happy to debate any creationist. The way Young Earth Creationist try to debunk evolution is through "scientific evidence". My objective is to prove that the Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports Evolution, and it fulfills all the requirements of a legitimate scientific theory. First, what is a scientific theory? Stephen Hawking defines a Scientific as "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." Thus saying that evolution is not a fact is irrelevant. Because it a system to describe known facts, and predict future ones, it is impossible to prove it as one would do a fact, because we are always finding new facts in the future. Rather, if we show it has been consistently right time and time again, and more importantly it has never been wrong, we have ourselves a good scientific theory. So the debate will be structured as such: Con will Accept, then Pro will explain in detail what evolution is, how it works, then the several classes of observations it describes, and finally detail a few examples of predictions it made that ended up being validated. From the rest of the debate onward, Con will attempt to use Scientific evidence to disprove Evolution (observed, recorded scientific phenomena, not the opinion of x or y scholar, because if we were to weigh individual scientific opinions as a way of evaluating evolution, Pro will win by a landslide), and is welcome to propose an alternate theory. Pro will attempt to refute Con's refutations and/or alternate theory, and will add more evidence as the need presents itself. No new critiques from Con in the last round, as Pro will be unable to answer them. This debate will be decided on two things. 1) whether or not Pro provides solid evidence that a) Evolution describes practically all known phenomena that the theory attempts to address, and b) it has predicted future phenomena correctly. More importantly, 2) If Con proves that there is scientific fact that precludes the Theory of Evolution (ie evidence that Dinos came before protozoa), or is otherwise contrary to predictions formulated from the theory, Con wins. BUT, if Pro satisfies the first clause, and successful negates Con's attacks, Pro wins. A quick note on God, or any other omnipotent beings/being. If my opponent wishes to run Creationism, s/he is welcome to as long as your model assumes that after the creation of the earth 6,000 years ago (or whatever number you believe), God does not interfere/tamper with observations and discoveries of our world. The reason for this is that if such a being does so, what we think of our reality is cast into doubt. (Am I really typing this? Or is God making me think I'm typing this? Or am I really me at all?). This is not mean't to be that sort of debate. It is purely about whether scientific evidence is for or against evolution. Good Luck and I await my challenger.