First theories are based on facts but are not proven facts yet that’s why they’re called theories and not facts. If theories were facts they wouldn’t be disproven as science gets better. Second evolution has not been proven that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. I’m sure you already know this.
From
theory , a theory is
"1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice:"
You appear to be using definition 6 of theory:
"6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."
This is not the definition used by scientists when they are referring to the unifying principles of a science.
Even when a theory has been superseded it may still be useful. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation was superseded by Einstein's general theory of relativity, but when I am calculating the orbits of planets, binary stars, asteroids,
etc., I use Newton's theory, which is mathematically easier and nearly as accurate under most circumstances. In the same way the modern synthetic theory of evolution may be superseded in the future, but it will probably still explain most of the facts of biology, and it is most unlikely to be replaced by Biblical creationism.
I don't see fundamentalist Christians complaining that the thermodynamic theory of heat, the kinetic theory of gases, electromagnetic theory, or quantum theory, or a large number of other theories, have not been proven and therefore should not be taught as fact in schools or universities. Why is this; why do fundamentalist Christians accept most scientific theories but reject the theory of evolution?
Finally, what scientific evidence would you find sufficiently compelling to persuade you to provisionally accept the reality of evolution?
