Equivocation or using words in two or more different senses is a common logical fallacy. In any argument, you need to define your terms. Start with "theory" and "law," as in "evolution is just a theory" or "if there are natural laws, there must be a lawgiver." Good luck.
It's a fact, but that's beside the point? Right. A lot of people accept scientific theories on trust--not faith--because we know something about how science works and how people get to be scientists. I don't understand electricity very well, but I trust the lights will come on when I flip the switch. I don't have a clue how computer chips work, but because there are many millions of functioning computers in the world, I can see that they do work. I know the sun will rise tomorrow because I understand that the illusion of sunrise is the result of the earth spinning at over a thousand miles an hour. Given the mass of the earth and the fact that Newton's laws of motion still apply, I think it will still be spinning tomorrow morning. There is no faith involved.
How do we think ideas get into science text books? We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for religious fanatics accepting on faith a book written by people ignorant of science three thousand years ago or thereabouts. Deductive reasoning leads me to put my trusts in scientists and in scientific text books. The same deductive reasoning leads me to doubt the "science" described by those who may be experts in reading said ancient book and inventing more and more fantasies around it. They have no expertise in science, they do no peer-reviewed research, and they put forward no tenable alternative theory. All they do is use faulty logic to attack the most important and all-encompassing theory in the history of science AND try to convince us that faith and reason are the same so their faith doesn't look quite so silly. And they never learn.
Animal husbandry, by the way, is not natural selection; it is artificial selection because human beings--not the environment--decide which animals are allowed to reproduce. Artificial selection is more efficient because there is intelligence behind it, not the blind forces of nature.
The reason it's a bad word is because of the theists.
You'll see, on The Atheist Experience, that they refuse to answer a question with a simple yes or no, if some theist calls in and asks if they believe some scientific fact or other. They'll always rephrase it to put it in more rational terms, such as understanding and accepting the facts of the scientific theory. They never say they believe something, because the theists will turn around and try to frame it as having faith, similar to their religious belief, 95% of the time.
That's one of the reasons I appreciate silly semantic debates, such as the one I had recently with Stephan Goodwin, over values. They teach us to speak more precisely, examine alternate interpretations, and avoid traps, such as the belief one.