Do scientists using the word "theory" loosely extend confusion on its exact, scientific meaning within the non-scientific public?

In any Web debate between creationists or intelligent design believers and evolutionists, discussion is sure to turn to the meaning of the word, “theory”. You probably know the drill. Those who prefer ideological belief to scientific proof will say, “But evolution is just a theory. Then follows a long debate over what theory means in scientific terms, with quotes from this and that dictionary, generally cherry-picked down to the single connotation that best fits the side quoting it.

Surely evolution is a very solid theory. The weight of evidence supporting it leaves virtually no doubt that it is largely an accurate description of how the many diverse species of life we see today got here. Bits and pieces of the detailed picture may change as we learn more and discover new fossil records, but the general idea that life evolved from simple, single-celled organisms up through ever more complex forms, and that numerous “trees of related species” have branches tracing back to an ancient “common ancestor” is not at all likely to change.

But while this classical use of the word theory does speak to a tightly tested reductionist result that is highly predictive, testable and has withstood tons of peer review; scientists themselves routinely use the word theory in loose terms more enormous with hunch or even wild assed guess (WAG) or at best SWAG (A WAG made by a scientist). An example is the Theory of Everything (we don’t even know if we will ever find such a theory—much less what it might say or how we might predict and test with it). Shouldn’t science adopt some other term for ideas which likely have scientific merit, but which are entirely unproven and certainly not worthy of the name, theory, in the strict scientific understanding of the word?