Yes, but theories are not /themselves/ facts. A theory is just one way to explain the facts, and though a given theory may explain the given facts well, a new theory may come along which explains the facts even better, or new facts may come along that the existing theory cannot explain. In either case, it's obvious that the theory is not itself a fact, because we may eventually have to discard it as inadequate.
I think that often the arrogance that people perceive in scientists (or at least in scientific reporting) is from the fact that the best known theory is described as a fact when it's not. It's just a model. Like any model of reality, all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
So I don't find it helpful to keep beating the dead horse about how the technical scientific term "theory" differs from the colloquial version. I think a more helpful approach is to try to educate people on how to skeptically evaluate the usefulness of any kind of claim/model/hypothesis/theory for themselves. Even if people understand the technical term "theory," it still doesn't matter unless they can evaluate a theory's usefulness.