[ndt]

"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.

[wagglebee]

See what I wrote in #119. Which specific Darwinian hypotheses have been proven true?

[Tamberlane]

Besides, the theory of evolution presently only applies to a single and extremely limited locale, namely one specific planet among unknown billions. As a matter of convention, 'law' implies greater universality.

The term 'law' is also conventionally reserved for principles expressed as simple equations. Though conceptually straightforward, evolutionary theory is a little too rich for that. Its central mechanisms like natural selection can be formulated in terms of laws if one insists.