We're on a roll here, so I figured I'd post my pet peeve about Anti-Evolutionism. I know I do so at my peril as I'm hitting two hot buttons at the same time: Evolution, and Language Usage, but here goes...
I'm really tired of hearing Anti-Evolutionists say things like "Even scientists think that Evolution is just a Theory, not a Law." Well, if you omit the "just", then that is entirely accurate. However, scientists mean something very different by "theory" and "law" than the common usage.
In everyday language, we use "theory" to mean an as yet unproven possibility. And in the Anti-Evolution slogan, the "just" implies that usage and contrasts it with "law" with the implication that laws are proven. Thus, the implication is that even scientists don't fully trust evolution else they would have called it the Law of Evolution.
This is to completely misunderstand how scientists use the words "law" and "theory". In scientific contexts, a law is an elegant statement of a basic regular feature of the universe. It is elegant in that it can be stated in a very definitive manner through an equation or a couple of unambiguous sentences. As such, it is narrow in scope and concrete in meaning. Laws are simple.
Theories, on the other hand, are complex. They describe whole systems. They are much broader in scope than laws. As such, they cannot be written as concisely, nor as concretely.
The primary difference between a law and a theory is scope, not reliability.
The law of gravity, Newton's Laws of Motion, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion, etc. are all expressible as concise equations or single sentences. The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, the Molecular Orbital Theory, Atomic Theory, etc. encompass to much to be expressed so simply. But scientists don't think that the Laws are better than the theories. In fact, scientists think that the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics trump Newton's Laws.
So just because Evolution is classified as a theory does not imply that it has yet to pass some critical test in order to become a law. It is simply to say that Evolution is too broad in scope to be classified as a law.
(Now one could point out that both scientific theories and scientific laws can be in error, and you would be right. But that is a whole nother discussion that has little to do with my pet peeve.)
(I should also point out, as has been noted in Abednego's "Evolution and the Pope", that evolution as a scientific theory is compatible with Christianity (though neither implies the other). Naturalistic evolution as a philosophical worldview, on the other hand, is not.)