You play with the words too much here. Any theory is a mere model, except fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be called "true", don't you think?
What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions (models).
EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of physics in the first place.
That's because fundamental physics seeks to be the ultimate explanation for everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing. Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.
The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true.
As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality.
I don't think it makes any sense to call evolutionary theory for true. It's completely missing the point.
If anything evolutionary theory is useful to explain phenomena it is not a true explanation of phenomena. There are no true explanations only consistent explanations branching out from the premise.
Physics is no exception. It's a model to explain phenomena and predict outcomes which are always temporary.
When 2 scientist talk about something "true", they never mean "no way this could be even slightly false". They mean either "given our present information, this is very very probably true" or "this is very very accurate". Most of the time they mean both.
Now, if you want to make a practical decision, in a relatively limited amount of time, you will most likely treat "most probably true, and very very accurate" statement as just true.
So OK, there is no "true". But in practical terms, this is only a stretch, an abuse of language. For practical purposes, this is good enough. If you think it's not, go invent a short label that precisely means what you want, and make people use that. Good luck.
For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory.
But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.)
Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?