Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
What is the state of evolution? When did evolution officially become a 'fact'? I have trouble with this because it seems like people use this statement because evolution has outgrown the word 'theory', which seems to downplay the entire thing. Personally, I have been researching the topic for a couple of a months now and feel that I have a pretty decent understanding of the subject. I understand that we can know that the process itself is fact, evolution really does occur. And that there is an enormous body of evidence that has been assembled, that seems to fit perfectly. But I still feel a bit unsure of the factuality of the deeper aspects of the theory, maybe because I still don't know enough. I just wonder if 'fact' is a little too arrogant, and if 'theory' doesn't quite do it justice. If there is some kind of middle ground between the two, maybe that's still where evolution belongs.