No I'm just playing, but I do have a point: The argument that the word "true" cannot be applied to scientific theory demands a level of knowledge that is not possible. I was referring to Hume's (infamous) Fork, which divides all statements into relations of ideas, which are discernible through a priori reasoning, and matters of fact, which must be obtained a posteriori. Each of these types of statements can only be used to prove other statements of the same type. Hence, nothing about the world we observe is certain. Additionally, causality is a leap of faith; every time we throw an egg, it cracks, and thus we assume a causal relationship between the egg's contact with a wall and it breaking. But all we're really doing is calculating the overwhelming probability that the egg will break.
Now what was my point? Oh yeah. Of course evolution isn't "true", because nothing is truly true (lol). But a scientific theory is the closest we ever come to truth, which justifies the colloquial use of the term "true".
