To answer the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" question:
We first have to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Pretty much every living 'example' used to teach evolution - the London moths, Darwin's finches and turtles - is an example of microevolution; changes to individuals within a species to adapt to a changing environment. Two physically different individuals in these examples could procreate and yield a viable, fertile offspring. At the most basic level, that is the definition of a species. We see microevolution all the time.
Now, macroevolution - the transformation of one species to another species - is a lot harder to make stick. As I mentioned before, almost no living examples have undergone a definite change in speciation. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to observe macroevolution in an empirical sense, because even if we have strong fossil evidence for an evolutionary link between two species in the distant past, we don't have the genetic material needed to establish whether definite speciation has taken place. The best we can do is make an educated guess and build to a conjecture based on what limited evidence we have. That doesn't prove or disprove anything - in fact, it makes either eventuality impossible for current science.
The definition of empirical science is science that concerns itself with information on the physical universe that can be gathered through the five senses and through methods we have created. Most textbooks will establish that for a hypothesis, theory, or conjecture to be workable within the realm of empirical science, it has to be observable, it has to be repeated or repeatable in an experimental setting, and it has to be mathematically quantifiable. Quite obviously, both creationism and macroevolution cannot be subjected to such standards. That's what makes this such a sticky debate.
