I wasn't quite sure whether to vote that it's a science or a theory. The problem is, it is a scientific theory, but the word "theory" carries implications of uncertainty and guesswork. I finally put "science," although I consider it to be more a phenomenon, fact, or theory than a science. (My definition of science is a branch of scientific study, like biology, or applied science/knowledge, like medicine.)
Could you please give links to your sources? Every reputable, sufficiently informative source I have encountered on it supports the idea that it is a scientific theory. It describes things which have been objectively observed, changes to accommodate discrepancies (and, I assume, would be dissolved entirely if sufficient evidence completely contradicted it), and involves more logic, explanation, and testing than simple dogma.
I can't particularly give links to my sources, because my choice to believe in creation was built over the overwhelming evidence I have seen through my entire life. However, if you would like some of the sources I recall, a very good place to start with simple would be a DVD series called TrueU: Does God Exist?. My church did it and it truely blew my mind. You could also try looking up some of Ken Ham's work. Creation is much more plausable than this socity gives it credit for, and evolution is much less fact. ~Rose
I've looked up one partial biography of Mr. Ham, and may look up more about him and his ideas. I have to admit, first of all, that I am generally apprehensive about literalist interpretations of the Bible. Parts, or maybe even all, of it may have been inspired by God, but it has been passed down, written down, and translated by fallible, biased humans, often with their own agendas. The simplest argument against the Bible as literal fact is the presence of two independent, partially incompatible creation stories in Genesis. I won't go into that further unless asked, as the topic at hand is evolution, not religion. I might check out some of his books and that DVD series you mentioned, just to find out any merits of the other side of the debate. Could you please give me a few of your basic arguments against evolution, though? I don't know when I'll get around to checking those sources, so I would rather know why you oppose the concept in your own words. And I agree that divine creation is plausible, mostly because there's literally no way to prove it. Therefore, it is not scientific, but faith-based. I still don't understand why so many people think evolution and intelligent design of the universe are incompatible.