I've ranted about this so much to people close to me. Scientific community just needs to adopt a new word like you say, theory is a lost battle

I accept it in colloquial discourse. I'm not happy about it, and I will smartass at everyone who isn't asking, but I accept that I'm probably fighting a losing battle. But in science, it's absolutely non-negotiable for words to mean what they mean, and not their own opposite.

Counterpoint:

The language of science is specific because it is beneficial to have standards that allow explicit specificity. Scientific linguistics evolve differently from the way colloquial linguistics evolves due to different motivations and this difference is okay.

The real problem isn't that scientific language is too strict but that we gatekeep scientific participation in every form, preventing most people from participating in such a way that scientific communication is not confusing. This is in addition to most scientific publications being unnecessarily written in inaccessible language. Specificity is helpful, but the excessive use of jargon and buzz-words to make yourself sound smarter through obtuse language is unhelpful for everyone involved. When jargon cannot be avoided, define it. If you cannot define it, reference a definition.

Clarity and accessibility in all scientific communication is the key to understanding.

Not in person, no. But I've had biology profs say that something was "just a theory".