A college of mine recently went to Las Vegas for a Engineering Conference. I asked her, “Did you see OJ?” She was puzzled. I expanded that OJ Simpson was released in October of 2017 and is (to the best of my knowledge) living in Las Vegas.
Interestingly, we got into a discussion on the innocence/guilt of OJ. What was most 
interesting was the idea of how do you prove whether or not OJ killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. She brought up all of the evidence she could remember. (Click here to get a summary of the evidence).
What I tried to do is help her separate scientific evidence such as hair samples, the glove, etc. from the historical event. What I mean is that science is about facts and reproducible experiments. History is about past events and speculation. Historical events can not be proven nor stated as scientific facts. They can only be events with high or low probability of occurring.
Let us take OJ’s situation. Nicole and Ron were killed by someone. OJ was seen driving around in his Bronco. These are historical events. We have a lot of pictures and testimony to document these historical events. We could conclude it is a historical fact with a high probability using all of the documentation but it cannot be a scientific fact since we cannot reproduce the event. Do you get the idea?
As best I know and have read, there is little controversy over the evidence of the shoes, blood, glove, hair, etc. The controversy was over the interpretation of the evidence and thus the cause of the historic event. What “force” caused the death.
Is Evolution A Theory? Just as in OJ’s case, both sided of the evolution / creation debate generally agree on the historical evidence (fossils exist) and scientific evidence (DNA). The question is the interpretation of the evidence and the “force” that caused the universe and life to be as we experience it.
Your answer to the question, is evolution a theory, boils down to your interpretation of the evidence, right?
Not exactly, you see, there are scientific laws that are in direct conflict with evolutionist claims. Which is correct, laws of science or evolutionist claims?