One of the reasons that people don't understand science is due to the specific and accurate language. When we say stuff it means something. To an IDiot a theory is a wild guess, whereas to a scientist it is a way to assemble the evidence into a codified framework.
Here's another good example. I was listening to a football game and after a disputed call the referee examined the play again by video. In order for the on-field decision to be changed, the referee must witness irrefutable evidence to the contrary.
He then says, "After further review the call on the field is confirmed."
Obviously not a scientist! The rule is that the evidence to change the call must be irrefutable. His second look is not trying to confirm the ruling, it is trying to overturn it. The question is "Is there enough evidence to change how the play was called on the field?"
So what the referee should have said is, "After further review the call is not overturned." He did not confirm the call, only saw that there was not a reason to change it. Big difference!
In a football game it does not ultimately matter, but to a scientist it certainly does. It is more accurate, correct, and really what the referee is trying to say.