I agree with the overall comments, but would submit that evolution could be considered a “model” based upon hypotheses. This is because evolutionists attempt to postulate a “System” of evolution. Of course, when I use the term “evolution” in this context, I am specifically talking about MACRO-evolution.
A model would be a more adequate term, however it still isn't a theory. Since a theory is the culmination of many confirmed hypotheses without any that refute it.
I totally agree, and my point wasn't giving macro "theory" status; it was merely asserting that macro can indeed be considered a model.
Considering that macro-evolution (not variation) has no confirmed hypotheses then according to the scientific method it is still in the hypothesis stage, hence my statement.
Models don't require "confirmed hypotheses", just as a hypothesis needs no verification/validation (confirmation) to be a hypothesis. A scientific model is basically a suggested explanation (abstract) using a systematic description via a number of hypotheses in the explanation. A model can be built upon, as facts are found (validation) to eventually become a theory. But, at that point it ceases being a model. Also, we typically find the use of models when it is unfeasible, impractical or impossible to create the correct experimental conditions with which to directly measure outcomes (i.e. vast distances between stars, measuring the actual heat in the center of a star (etcetera… etcetera… Blah-Blah-Blah).
This is an oversimplification to be sure, and there are many other factors involved, but it retains its meaning in my description.