A valid scientific hypothesis has a working model (BEFORE graduating to a scientific theory), evolution isn't even a good premise, let alone a valid hypothesis OR valid scientific theory. Those that disagree only need to present their working model for evolution with evidence. This is how you conform your model into a hypothesis, with the facts in evidence of the origin and method and process by which the successful model works.
Darwinian Evolution fails to meet the minimum criteria for Scientific Theory, Fact, Hypothesis, or Law and so is none of the above. To be able to tell the difference, you would first have to be able to recognize a fact that agrees with logic and sound reasoning in an objective manner; objectivity stumps a lunatic right there.
Notice the atheist answers here, particularly your Best Answer, no one single fact, ever, just blame, blame, "they this" and "they that", geez, you need a podium for that? Deny, avoid, skirt, ignore anything real and pretend like children; pointless. Such a waste.
Evolution has been grafted in simply out of the desire to deny the Creator and to deny His power and authority. Evolutionary ideas are simply one way in which humans seek to deny God’s authority.
Most atheists and secular humanists recognize the fact that evolution commonly leads to atheism and they are, for this reason, at the forefront of defending evolution (Sharp and Bergman 2008).
Noble laureate Robert Laughlin concluded that evolution is actually anti-science. He wrote “of” or “about” his concern that much “present-day biological knowledge is ideological” which, he notes, involves explanations that have no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! . . . Biology has plenty of theories [to explain origins]. They are just not discussed—or scrutinized—in public (Laughlin 2005, pp. 168–169).
In other words, Laughlin notes that evolutionism has become an explanation for events for which no explanation as of yet exists. This implies that a valid scientific explanation does exist, which may discourage scientific investigation to find the real explanation.