And you'd be right. But that is not the case for evolutionary biology, which has been built upon, and validated by, an overwhelming amount of evidence, along multiple independently cross-confirming lines.
Finally, a non-infantile response. I tempted to grant you your claim just in gratitude for an evolutionist willing to engage in the conversation at a post-pubescent level.
But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Marxists and Freudians would have made exactly the same claim as you are making here.
As I explained in a previous thread, no-one is in a position to speak authoritatively to the extent of the alleged evidence for evolution, because it exists in a host of very specialized fields which require very parochial knowledge in order for one truly to decide for oneself about the state of the evidence.
So one must make an argument from authority, taking it on faith that those individuals who are truly in a position to speak to the nature of the evidence in the various scientific fields attest that the preponderance of the evidence is positive for evolution.
What you find, however, is that often scientists are far more confident about the support evolution receives from the scientific fields in which they are not experts than the one to which they are qualified to speak.
Anyway, for anyone to claim that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming is silly. At best you are saying that you take it on faith, based on authority and consensus, that this is true. Right now.