And based on the context by which it was used, not the scientific type, as Morris Sullivan describes:
"Many people use the term 'theory' as a synonym for 'opinion.' However, in a science classroom, 'theory' means something very specific. A scientist formulates a hypothesis which may explain a phenomenon. He or she then tests the hypothesis through some means of experimentation or seeking supporting evidence. If the hypothesis passes the test, then it is tested again and again by other scientists to see if it passes it consistently. If the testing supports the hypothesis over and over, it becomes a theory. If it doesn't pass consistently, another hypothesis is sought. Sometimes, a better hypothesis comes along that explains more or better. In that case, the old theory is discarded and the new adopted.
"A theory should not only explain what has happened, but predict what will
happen. Theories about the Earth's movement in the heavens, for example, accurately predict when the sun will rise. In science, a theory must be tested using empirical means. In other words, at some point, the scientist must be able to perceive evidence for the theory with normal human senses. Even then, the theory is not considered 'fact' unless it becomes somehow empirically observed. For instance, the theory that the earth is round can be 'proved' either by travelling all the way around it or by flying into space to look. Only then does it become fact.
"In science, there are relatively few 'facts.'"
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night."
-- Isaac Asimov
I believe you're already well aware of that. I only wanted to point that out to others who may read. I hope that's alright.