How exactly is his comment false? Do you actually have a rebuttal that actually refutes his statement that the "Just a theory" argument is a pile of crap? This " Just a theory" have already been addressed by me, Astrodon ( the most eloquent out of the bunch), and some others here in response to your use of it as an argument. Your lack of a reply either means you finally caught on to your misuse of scientific terminology, you simply didn't bother to read it because it is simply easier to stick your fingers in your ears and hum real loud, or you still don't understand and is still digesting the information. I'd prefer the former and the latter.
When it comes down to it though, anyone whose been educated in the sciences from an accredited university do view creationism/ID, to put it bluntly, as a pile of crap. The people who extoll ID make the most horrendous abuse of scientific terminology since Star Trek. To have people who not only make these abuses, but to also view themselves as more credible experts than scientists who've spent literally decades to become experts in their fields is frankly quite insulting.
A good equivalent in physics, is for someone to go up to Astrodon (Sorry, gonna use you as an example since you're the only physics guy here) and say that all of orbital mechanics is wrong because when an object orbits another in a circle, the velocity of the object is the same. Since F=ma, there is no force holding it in orbit, and therefore some divine intervention had to be involved.
Something like this actually did occur historically, though the problem was quite a bit more complicated.
