Sure. These are your assumptions, not mine. It is you who assume "universal gravity can only be demonstrated by looking at light," all the time not knowing for certain whether there may be more involved.
In the scheme of things we know less about the universal law of gravitation than appears. Ask ten scientists "What is light?" and see if they all agree. See if they have an absolute answer.
Strange how - in your opinion - the amount of accepted data is somehow more indicative of reliability than any other factor. Why is this so? Why should the pure volume of so-called knowledge plus the three centuries of scientific study carry any more water than pure emotion? Do these things indeed affect reliability? How do you know for certain? Do you assume, just because so many have have said it and claimed to have seen it, that is must be true?
The ostrich ought to be the world mascot for evolutionists, as they refuse to even consider the possibility that other unknown forces may be involved in all they observe. Shame on their silly asses.
Oh, how silly can you get? Biological science just revised the root of the tree of life, in such a manner as to cast doubt on the notion of common ancestry. The instant ameba's start giving birth to orangutangs, science will abandon darwinism. However, science will not abandon Darwinism because someone like Behe makes vague, experimentally void claims about the limits of life's capacity to innovate.
Sure. These are your assumptions, not mine. It is you who assume "universal gravity can only be demonstrated by looking at light," all the time not knowing for certain whether there may be more involved.
If you are going to make claims about the universe, it is, I suspect, the universe you must observe to verify your claim. No significant part of the universe beyond our Solar system gets signals here any faster than 4.8 light-years after the fact.