"There is very good reason to call the ToE "just a theory."
And that reason is that you don't understand the meaning of the term 'theory' as used in teh natural sciences. It doesn't mean 'conjection' or 'proposal'. It doesn't mean something that has yet to be proven to be fact. It means a tentative, comprehensive and predicitive model derived solely from a body of corrobated hypostheses to explain a specific body of factual evidence (with respect to evolution, all evidence regarding observed biologically diverse living populations.
"There is no objective evidence for it."
No evidence, other than the fossil record. And fossil transitional series. And the observed nested hierarchy of species. Oh, and genetic and peptide homologies. Convergence of independent phylogenies. Conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, psuedogenes, SNAP's. Homologous anatomical features. Atavisms. Vestigial structures. Patterns of biogeographic distribution. And ...
Well, you get the picture. No evidence except for the body of evidence as large or larger than exists for any other scientific theory from any other field of inquiry.
Not to mention tee litle fact that we've seen evolution occuring in living populations in real time.
"What evidence there is supports creationism just as well or better."
I'll bite: how does the existence of transitional fossil series support creationism to the same extent as they support evolution? How do conserved retro-viral insertions support creationism to the same extent as they support evolution? How does the fact we've SEEN new species arise from existing species, in real time, as the result of evolutionary processes support creationism to the same extent as they support evolution?
