If evolution is so "clear cut" and "scientific," then why has science been unable to elevate it from a mere theory to a law? The fact is that many learned scientists are openly ridiculing evolution as totally without merit because the theory is so full of holes that it cannot be proven and the harder science tries to produce proof, the more evidence there is to disprove it.
"If evolution is so "clear cut" and "scientific," then why has science been unable to elevate it from a mere theory to a law"
Ohhh Ohhhhh... pick me!! I know that one!!!
Actually to be elevated to "law" requires that the the theory be reasonably simple and concise. The broader the "field of coverage" so to speak, the harder it is to test to the point of conviction. So while aspects of Evolution, like specific processes of mutation might be promotable, a topic as broad a evolution would never be. This is not really a knock against evolution, this is true for all scientific theories of a broad scope.
This is absurd, theories do not get promoted. A theory is the pinnacle of the scientific method. If you think 'laws' are the be all and end all check out Newton's laws and relativity.
The fact is that many learned scientists are openly ridiculing evolution as totally without merit because the theory is so full of holes that it cannot be proven and the harder science tries to produce proof, the more evidence there is to disprove it."
You are just repeating outright garbage. Very few scientists doubt the mechanisms of evolution and even fewer doubt evolution as a theory. If you want to compare numbers, compare the few hundred that profess to doubt evolution compared to the few hundreds of thousands that not only believe in but use it to a certain extent in their research.