Going by the definition of "theory" which PZ Meyers used when he was discounting the book Godless by Ann Coulter, he gave the following explanation of a theory:
The issue is not whether there is evidence that supports evolution theory, but whether there is evidence that is explained by evolution theory, since theories are explanations for data.
So lets apply this to FET. Is there evidence explained by FET? Yes.
On the same token, is there evidence explained by RET? Yes.
So all I ask in debates is that they are given equal ground, as many FE'ers seem to make arguments based on the outright assumption that RET has been proven to be completely incorrect.
Yes, this is the Flat Earth Society, but FET has yet to be concretely proven (I presented a critique which discredited EnaG whose central argument went unchallenged even by Tom Bishop). This means that RET is as legitimate as theory as FET, and should be considered as such.