Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does. The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
In the mid 19th century, Charles Darwin formulated the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, published in his book On the Origin of Species (1859).
Creationism is not science, it's bad inductive reasoning that does not prove there is a god but merely suggests in a weak fashion that perhaps, maybe it's possible that we were potentially designed because we are afraid to admit we could be a cosmic accident. The argument is based solely on the awe factor, the lack of imagination of the arguer. This kind of thinking, or more specifically the lack thereof, results in a people who don't believe in themselves because even simple problems are too awe inspiring to be looked at rationally and solved.
Consider the caveman who understood how to make fire when his peers did not. If they revere him as a god and never try to understand or learn about the nature of fire then all of the power lies with the one person and the chosen few he shares his knowledge with. What the creationism idea does is try to idolize the caveman and demonize the people who would attempt to learn about fire, because the small minded religious types don't want to surrender the power they hold over people. If we listened to these type of arguments with any mind to accepting them we'd never have gotten beyond the dark ages because science would be demonic witchcraft and punishable by death.
Contrast that with the theory of evolution, which has years of actual proof behind it some of which is of great concern (bacteria for example, evolving to be immune to drugs). We can actually trace back various mutations and determine that evolution does happen. We aren't afraid to examine our origins, even if we do find out at some point that there was some kind of guiding hand involved. The point is to find out rather than assume something based on an inductive argument that could mean that we are an alien ant farm instead of some god's children.
Note that for evolution to happen you need two things.
1. You need to have heritable features and either genetic mixing or errors in copying.
2. You need some sort of "pressure" ie, not every living thing will procreate equally, but those with certain feature will procreate more.
If you have both of these things, and we do, then you will get evolution. It's an unavoidable certain effect of the above two situations. Denying evolution is therefor on the level of denying that 1+1 = 2.
This does not prevent there being a creator, or somebody guiding the evolution. Realizing this is Darwins great achievement. (He didn't discover that animal evolved, scientists already knew that, the question was how and why).
Evolution doesn't even contradict creationism. The world could have been created 6000 years ago, or even 10 seconds ago, and evolution would still be a fact. Claiming that evolution is fiction or just a hypothesis is therefore just silly.
The options provided are based on misunderstandings of the meaning of scientific theory and perhaps truth. Quoting from Wikipedia:
"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis')."
So if something is a theory, it is known to be true to the full extent of human knowledge. However, every theory is tentative. There is no practical distinction (or at lest no knowable distinction) between a scientific theory and a fact.
Evolution is true to the full extent of human knowledge.
Evolution is a theory, likely to be true. Just as the geocentric model was a theory, likely to be true. All theories have a percentage of falseability; even if this percentage is small. The theory becomes more likely to be true when observation and facts help its argument; but this doesn't mean the theory is 100% true. There is no such thing as a theory 100% true.
Near as we can tell, evolution is so true that it actually has a higher certitude than a lot of other ideas that people accept as unquestionable in day-to-day reality.
There are many unanswered questions about the nature of biological change over time. But we understand so much about evolution, from its mechanisms (DNA and RNA) to how it tends to operate to its general time frame, and the evidence for it ties together so many disciplines, that for it to be falsified or even put into any serious doubt would require a mountain of evidence.
Evolution is a fact, a scientific fact. Having an 'opinion' about it is like having an opinion about gravity. You are either rational and 'know' the facts, or you are superstitious and 'believe' the facts to be 'just a theory' (you have an opinion).
It is undeniable that evolution is a fact, you can see it all around us, we as humans have evolved, from using the stone wheel, to apple products, I'm not going to touch on the idea of evolution from certain organisms, but evolution does happen through many different outlets.
Theory is just a theory. It is not a law. Theory of evolution is a myth. Certain features of the world and of living things can be explained by the existence of the Designer. The world is too complex to be just an accident. An eye can't be formed over time - it's too complex. There are too many interconnected parts that would not work without the other. They wouldn't work if even one piece was missing. How does an organism that has no eyes grows eyes when it cannot even know there is anything to see?
It's a little bit of both. I believe that mankind was created by a divine power. However, I also believe that, that divine power did not create man perfectly on the first try. In fact, the dinosaurs were simply a trial run to get things like eyes, ears, and limbs perfected before wiping them out to create the humans.
I call this the compromise theory.
The question is problematic because the meaning of the words, "fact" and "theory" are different outside of scientific context. What people mean when they say these words depends on the people and the context. But YES, in general, evolution is a 'fact' in as much as 'gravity' is a fact...although both are scientific 'theories' which are also laws - and are open to revision as the field of science continues to grow and change. The other commenters on this thread have said more or less the same thing.
A theory, by definition can not be factually proven, only supported by evidence. I think it's an accurate theory, and evidence supports it beyond a reasonable doubt. While the difference between calling it an accepted theory and fact is nuanced, terminology is important in debating such topics.