In science one starts with a hypothesis. If it can be proven it becomes a law or rule of science like the laws of motion. Sometimes a hypothesis can't reach the status of a rule or law. If insurmountable evidence is accumulated the hypothesis is elevated to a theory as has been done with evolution.
One may observe that many laws are enacted based on a hypothesis and not a theory or rule.
I'm not certain that I understand the intended meaning of this, but I think it might reveal a misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means, in the context of evolution. The underlying problem is that the word "theory" has a fuzzy meaning. When people hear this word being spoken, or read it, they often do not interpret the meaning in a way consistent with the intent of the person who used the word.
Creationists have been fond of saying, "Evolution isn't a scientific fact. It's only a theory." The immediate question is with the origin or source of this notion, that the theory of evolution is merely a "theory" in the sense of not being regarded by mainstream science as established fact. This is not a correct understanding of the status of the idea, among mainstream scientists, so the question that begs to be explained is why so many people say, "Evolution isn't a scientific fact. It's only a theory". I think that this is simply a matter of people misinterpreting the oft-uttered phrase, "theory of evolution". People assume that the word "theory" means what they want it to mean, and don't bother with asking themselves whether the meaning they ascribe to the word is genuine, or whether the meaning they scribe to the word is a matter of convenience to them.
Of course when mainstream scientists utter (or write) the words, "theory of evolution", they are simply alluding to the pertinent body of knowledge. Just like, "theory of the electron", which does not insinuate that the existence of the electron is in doubt, but is only an allusion to the pertinent body of knowledge.
In one sense this might be deemed a conflict over semantics, but if it were characterized as only this, it would be disingenuous, because this isn't merely a conflict over semantics. I find it difficult to characterize the thing appropriately, but it is definitely not a mere conflict over semantics. Partly because there is unarguably malicious intent here, i.e., it is a malicious act for anyone to encourage anyone else to infer, from the mere fact that the phrase "theory of evolution" is often used, that the status of the theory of evolution, within mainstream science, is merely that of an unproved theory.
The important point that I'm trying to make is this: no information about the status of the theory of evolution, within mainstream science, is carried within the fact that the words "theory" and "evolution" are very often uttered in the same sentence. The fact that these two words frequently occur together, in the same sentence, says nothing at all about how mainstream scientists regard the theory of evolution. The phrase "theory of evolution" remains popular only because no one has ever been able to think up a good alternative way to refer to the theory of evolution. That's it. Nothing more. We use the phrase "theory of evolution" simply because this is the phrase that we use to refer to the theory of evolution. It does not mean that mainstream scientists don't think of the theory of evolution as accepted fact, or that they regard it as specifically a hypothesis, or anything else along these lines. There is nothing that can correctly be deduced, from the fact that this phrase is popular, beyond the obvious: it is a convenient and established way to refer to the pertinent body of knowledge, i.e., the body of knowledge associated with the concept of evolution. It is purely a linguistic convenience, not one thing more, and anyone who reads more into it than this is making a blunder.