Evolution is a THEORY not a Fact

I'd like to start out by pointing out the fact that my opponent hasn't thought his/her demands for the format of the debate through too clearly. They've decided that the first round should consist purely of "questioning" presumably meaning questioning each other's cases, and yet their post consisted of their first round, negating their ability to question me or my argments effectively. If I were feeling crude I may try to draw a correlation between my opponent's lack of forethought and my opponent's apparant inability to use a dictionary. Ignoring for a second the obvious rebuttal within the dictionary argument, I think instead I'll turn off "easy" mode and instead argue from another angle. Namely, that the term "theory of evolution" completely lacks the pretentious attitude that my opponent seems to believe it posesses, simply because it accepts it's status of "theory" freely. Besides which, "theory" is probably the limit we can get to when it comes to the origin of mankind. While we have endless quantities of fossils, carbon dating, geologial evidence, similarities in skeletal structure and DNA to primates and the deliberately self-questioning nature of science as an aspect of humanity's curiosity to ensure that our knowledge is never taken for granted, none of us were there. We have no primary sources, no multiple scholars and writers to compare to. Humanity's main method of studying history proves ineffective at studying anything that happened before the first cave paintings. Since we have no way of viewing the creation of mankind barring the presence of a time machine, we have no way to be sure if evolution is a fact or not, it is pure theory. Despite this, there are factors of evolution that are definitely factual. Natural selection, micro-evolution, the development of tool usage in the animal kingdom, are all consistent with the theory that mankind, and most other forms of life today, evolved from single-celled organisms. In addition to this, we have surprising little factoids that would suggest that even insects are commonly aware of what constitues a danger to their nest or group. Take this video for instance: http://wimp.com... Most of this video is irrevant, save for one particular part. The uninfected ant risks personal harm or death to move the infected ant as far away from the nest as possible. Not only does an ant, a creature generally thought of as mindless, unintelligent and barely even sentient, know that a particular fungus can and will devastate the nest if nothing is done about it, but it knows this instinctively. The point of this? Instinct is a form of adaptation, a method of partially bypassing natural selection that applies even to the smallest and most individually unintelligent of creatures. Ultimately, however, all this pales in comparison to a pair of points that my opponent has conveniently overlooked. The first is that since the alternative to Evolution has traditionally been been Creationism, since the evidence for Creationism is fundamentally weaker than that of Evolution, that makes Creationism even more of a theory than the theory of Evolution. Secondly, my opponent has stated as a fact that evolution "is" being taught as fact, and yet despite their statement that they "would like to use evidence" neither offered nor referenced any. Additionally, typing in "why is evolution taught as fact" into google produces yahoo answers, openly biased whinging sessions and people saying that it should be taught as fact in a way that implies that it isn't currently taught as fact. So not only has my opponent neither referenced nor provided any evidence for their case, but their argument seems to lack serious backing.