Why are String theory and M-theory considered scientific theories

I've been reading a lot of articles about the whole evolution vs creationism debate (evolution all the way, by the by), and I am continually being forced to grit my teeth in frustration whenever these idiots pull the utterly vapid 'it's just a theory' argument, even though it has been explained more times than I can count that the word 'theory' in a scientific sense refers to a framework of knowledge, observations and experimental evidence that explain various aspects of reality. In other words, if the evolution scientists (I denounce any scientist that outright claims that evolution is a lie) are correct, a scientific theory is for all intents and purposes 'proven', as much as anything can be proven outside of mathematics, to be correct and accurate. That is my working definition to the word theory as well.

However, as much as I think the majority of creationists are just being trolls when they pull the 'it's just a theory' argument, I can't help but notice that there are several cases where scientific theories, the most obvious being String theory, M-theory, and loop quantum gravity theory, that do not fit that definition of the word theory, and seem to me to better fit the definition of theory that is a synonym of 'hypothesis', as these 'theories' have virtually no experimental evidence of any kind backing them up (if I'm wrong on that account, someone please let me know). In fact I have heard several scientists refer to them as being philosophy, not science. So I'm curious, why is it that they are referred to as scientific theories and not hypotheses? True they have the potential to explain how the universe operates, but until we can build a particle accelerator the size of the solar system, we won't be able to directly test them.

As far as I'm concerned, they are designed to be unsolvable and create a scientific standstill. I guess "String theory" flows better than "String hypothesis". I would basically call evolutionary theory a misunderstood and augmentable fact; unless creationists want to argue that God is 'tricking us' into believing that we got here via evolution and not his direct intervention, but needless to say, the 'it appears that way, but may not be, and I have no evidence to show this' argument doesn't fly well in intellectual circles. I would simply see string theory and the like as a good mental exercise which may lead to the truth via the methods developed within them, rather than as a representation of the truth itself.

These topics are still in the study stage by experts. It is not meant for all. When ever a new word is invented, the people jump into discussion without thinking much. So do not worry about them. They do not give a reliable answer. You stick to the conventional science, which is well tested.

To my understanding, none or at least hardly any physicists would consider those to be actual theories. In fact I often see them making it very explicit that we don't have a string theory yet.

"There is only one truth: Something Exists. Everything else is a perspective of the observer in their limited environment of perception."

Everything is a theory.
Some theories have less contradictions and/or holes than others.
Some theories like the Standard Model has a traceable lineage of development.
Some theories can be used by engineers to produce useful productivity more than others.

Useful theories are in some ways testable so that the relationships can evolve. All theories evolve, and eventually the hope is they will become useful.Theories that don't evolve are sometimes called laws if they are useful, like the laws of thermodynamics. Useful relationships that can be used repeatedly within a "constrained environment". The laws of thermodynamics are not abstractly useful in all circumstances like near the speed of light, intense gravity wells, with materials that have uncharacterized non-linear properties, nano-scale and smaller artifacts. Theories that don't evolve and are not testable are called Religions. String Theory evolves daily, so even though not testable it is not a religion. Potentially String Theory is testable in a quantum causality environment. But first quantum causality needs to be detected. From what I've grasped so far, Quantum Causality is not directly observable due to Relativity. Anything based in relativity is observable, systems of causality, not individual connectedness. So a quanta connected to an experiment one microsecond, is no longer connected to the experiment the following microsecond, and is part of other relativistic entities. That is why differential systems of detection are required and direct detection of quantum causality is not feasible.

Like x-rays, a detetor needs to be modeled. For quantum causality systems of physics need to be modeled into the detector to isolate relativity in some way. When this happens, I suspect String Theory will become a very important part of physics; and it will evolve very quickly due to having a testable environment. When String Theory related to quantum causality becomes testable, tools to control space-time will probably evolve. Useful outcomes.

They're not scientific theories.

They're hypothesis and/or models, depending on how you're referring to them as or what you're referring to. They don't have any data supporting them, but they also don't have any data falsifying them either.

Welcome to the English language, where we have different possible meanings for the same word, and sometimes certain ways of referring to something can go viral to such an extent that a word that is typically used to mean one thing in a specific context is used to mean something else in that same context, even though it's otherwise only meaning what it actually originally meant in that context.

A very silly parallel example would be if we cal