Pointing towards the planets and saying the position of them changes, is not really a theory. Pointing to populations of organisms and saying they change is likewise not a theory. Saying "things change" is a rather meaningless catchall frame of reference. Especially when they made no change part of evolution theory, as by punctuated equilibrium, it shows evolution theory is essentially meaningless.
The full title is the 'Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection'. That last part is the important bit, and the bit you're conveniently leaving out.
Darwin's book in which he spelled out his theory was: 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.'
As Alfred Russel Wallace pointed out in 1958:
The problem then was not only how and why do species change, but how and why do they change into new and well defined species, distinguished from each other in so many ways; why and how they become so exactly adapted to distinct modes of life; and why do all the intermediate grades die out (as geology shows they have died out) and leave only clearly defined and well marked species, genera, and higher groups of animals?
The answer to this, which both Wallace and Darwin figured out at roughly the same time, was natural selection. That's why their joint paper, published in 1858, was 'On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection'
To say evolution is occurring basically means to say that occurrences are occurring.
Correct. Observation shows that organisms pass different traits down to their offspring, which results in differing reproductive success, with the traits leading to more success (or at the very least, not lowering success) becoming fixed in the population.
In other words, evolution by natural selection is what it observed occurring in nature. It's not the only game in town (hello horizontal gene transfer and epigenetics), but its the most dominant.
There is not a single occurence which falls outside the frame of reference of evolution theory.
Correct.
Evolution by natural selection is supported by the known evidence, and is not refuted by any of it. That isn't to say there aren't plenty of unresolved questions in evolutionary biology and lots of gaps in our knowledge (some of which may never be filled). However, to the best of our knowledge, nothing in existence contradicts the theory as it is presently formed.
How organisms are actually formed is by intelligent design. That is a real theory.
It's not a theory. It doesn't even make the grade of hypothesis. It's an assertion, without evidence or support. What's more, its an unfalsifiable assertion, which makes it useless from a practical standpoint.