"Just a theory" negation has me concerned with how that word is typically used

[SGOS]

Going back to the question raised in the OP. The word theory has two different meanings which are
virtually polar opposites hence the confusion over its use. In science it is an established frame work
of laws representing the most rigorously tested hypotheses which have all been subject to potential
falsification. So it is not something untestable or unsupportable which is what the lay definition of it
is. It is interesting how Christians say evolution is only a theory. Since they never say it at all about
gravity or electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or general relativity which are also only theories

Theists seem to elevate scientific law to something noble and immutable, and perhaps they confuse scientific law with written rules that can only be made by entities.  Yes, evolution is only a theory, but then gravity is only a law.  Both can change.  God's law changes at various points in the Bible.  It also varies according to circumstances.  So what's so flawed about something only being a theory?

A theory is only an explanation that explains how something works, but some explanations are very good, and some are better than others.  It could be argued that evolution provides a better theory than gravity, which is still far from understood, yet never questioned by theists.  And evolution certainly provides a better understanding of how species come to be than any biblical account.  "God did it" doesn't suffice as a scientific explanation because there is no possible way to verify it.  It's no better than saying "invisible kangaroos did it, because that would be impossible to verify also.

Creating a woman from the rib of man is poetic, but it doesn't address how.  God breathing life into clay is poetic and perhaps even a moving metaphor, but it doesn't explain how.  It's poetry that leaves the hows and whys to nothing more than an individuals half baked imagination.  For me, it describes a process that "poofs" something into something else.  It only explains why this happens if I don't give a shit how it works.  It's entirely unsatisfying from the perspective of actual accumulation of useable knowledge.

If you want to fall back on "evolution is a theory", I would agree, but then the "Bible is poetry that captures some people's imaginations,"  which makes evolution significantly more helpful to understanding.  Theories explain phenomena.  Scientific laws describe them.  Poetry inspires the spirit.  All do entirely different things.  Inspiration may be a wonderful thing, but it really doesn't explain how something works.

When I want to understand something, getting all inspired and poetic just doesn't satisfy the right buttons.  A theory, even one that might be conditional until further verification is available, just does a better job.  We are free to realize it's conditional.  No one tells us to believe a theory or we will suffer eternally in some fiery place.  It's a much better offerring.

[peacewithoutgod]

Going back to the question raised in the OP. The word theory has two different meanings which are
virtually polar opposites hence the confusion over its use. In science it is an established frame work
of laws representing the most rigorously tested hypotheses which have all been subject to potential
falsification. So it is not something untestable or unsupportable which is what the lay definition of it
is. It is interesting how Christians say evolution is only a theory. Since they never say it at all about
gravity or electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or general relativity which are also only theories

Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.

There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk  today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all! 

[Mike Cl]

Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.

There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk  today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all!

Obviously you are a hedonistic heathen!

[SGOS]

Two different meanings, and Baruch insists they are both correct, but I doubt that. Science and math basically explain everything else, therefore I don't see how there can be one single application for the not-scientific application of "theory" which is better than the scientific one.

There happens to be at least two definitions for "atheist" as well. My personal favorite is the 17th Century definition "a loose person without moral restraint", but I define myself as "a person who doesn't believe in a god". When some disrespectful jerk  today addresses atheism by the former definition, I often get the urge to smack them clear up into the ...heavens. Don't know why I never did that, having no moral restraint and all! 

Yes.  Inspiration and understanding are not the same thing.  Both are enjoyable to varying degrees among different individuals, and they each may have a value to mankind, but they are not the same.

[Mike Cl]

Yes.  Inspiration and understanding are not the same thing.  Both are enjoyable to varying degrees among different individuals, and they each may have a value to mankind, but they are not the same.

I have to agree.