The effect of an idea about the nature of reality on it's holders is not a reasonable measure of it's likely truth.
Do you really think "universal gravitation" is as speculative as evolution?
Universal gravitation failed the perihelion of mercury experiment and had to be revised; because it now fails the dark matter experiment, serious physicists are proposing yet another revision; and it is now beginning to come under revisionist attack from the forces of quantum gravity.
There isn't a particle of difference between assuming a continuous flow of evolution between fossil finds in distinct layers of dirt, and the assumption that the law of gravity exists over large distances containing nothing but vaccum, where no experimentation or data-gathering whatsoever has been done.
The inductive evidence available to support evolution is more fine-grained, abundant, available and accessable than that supporting universal gravitation. That's why there are dozens of referreed technical journals in the biological sciences whose detailed work is predicated on the notions of evolution.
This statement applies equally to any belief system, including evolution. Regardless of the volume of inductive evidence, or how fine-grained it is, in the end it is a belief system that foists itself upon the public arena as if it were absolute truth.
Does that mean that you are going to jump off a 100 story building and fall up? Are you willing to give it a go?