A Theory is an educated guess and ...
a scientific theory is based on evidence and predictions to test the validity of the theory. So yes, it is not just a random made up guess, but one educated by the evidence and validated by passing the tests ... and the education can be graded by how it passes the tests.
... and Evolution is a term of observation, "we watched the play evolve." ...
You are employing -- probably unwittingly -- the logical fallacy of equivocation, where different meanings\definitions of a word are used in different parts of the argument.
You are confusing "evolve" with the meaning "unfolding" (a flower unfolds as it blooms, a butterfly unfolds as it emerges from a cocoon) with the meaning used in biology (where it has a specific meaning within that field) for the process by which species change. Let me help you:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in an iterative feedback response to the different ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.
Now it is a
FACT that this process has been observed and documented to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution."
As should be readily seen, this definition of evolution does not apply to how a play unfolds. Rather the unfolding of the play is more analogous to the unfolding of evidence as it is discovered from the natural history of life on earth -- a grand play indeed eh?
... We don't know the plot so we make an educated guess about what is happening.
We can certainly form an hypothesis about what is going to happen, and we can test that against evidence as the play unfolds -- making modifications when needed -- and this additional (new) evidence will either confirm or invalidate the hypothesis by the time the play ends.
That is part of the scientific method and a valid approach to investigating new phenomena.
So the T of E is
"the guessing of guessing"
Well you are confusing your hypothesis as both the beginning and the ending, and you used different definitions of evolution (equivocation fallacy) to arrive at a rather fatuous result -- not because the ToE is at fault but because your logic is invalid.
Let me introduce you to a couple more terms:
The theoretical evolution of all species involves what is called "macroevolution" by scientists (and often misunderstood by creationists) -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:
- The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
- The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.
Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes call phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation.
Now, just as the process of evolution has been observed and documented, it is a
FACT that these two macroevolutionary processes have been observed and documented to occur.
Now just like the unfolding play we can form an hypothesis of how the natural history of the earth unfolded, and because we want it to be a scientific theory we base it on known processes and known objective empirical facts; thus we can define the Theory of Evolution as follows:
The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.
AND we can test that theory against the new knowledge and evidence that occurs as the play unfolds.
So far there is not one instance from "the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us" that cannot be explained by the two processes listed above.
Thus the theory has been tested an incredible number of times (every fossil, every genome, every field observation, etc) and it has passed those tests with flying colors.
Makes it a pretty intelligent theory doesn't it?
"Not knowing what is not known"
Where should we begin in such a study?
You start by learning what you don't know from the information available to you. In this case I can recommend (strongly)
Evolution 101 -- a teaching aid from Berkeley University ...
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2