The only way that anyone can honestly claim that evolution is not as well supported as other fields of science is for them to be vastly unfamiliar with the field.
When it comes to the disciplines, I have the greatest confidence in math and geometry. To a slightly lesser degree, I have confidence in physics, chemistry and molecular biology; to a lesser degree, cosmology and astronomy; lesser still, archeology and evolution.
My value assessment has nothing to do with the volume of evidence - but it has everything to do with the kind of evidence. Moreover, it has everything to do with my confidence in any particular theory.
Going back to evolution theory, there has been a relatively recent involvement of mathematicians, information theorists and physicists looking at a variety of issues, e.g. ”What is Life?”, biological information content, complexity. At the same time, molecular biologists and geneticists are exploring genetic functions, in particular regulatory control genes. It appears these efforts are converging to a consensus that variation emerges from autonomous biological self organizing complexity (though different scientists use different words to describe it.)
This is all happening within conventional science – not a hint of creationism or intelligent design – yet the meaning is clear, at least to me.
The long standing theory of biological evolution involves the interworking of random mutation plus natural selection. No doubt both occur as we can see it happening in viruses and bacteria. And if that were the entire story, life would be a directionless walk - happenstance.
However, if variation primarily emerges within the constraints of autonomous biological self organizing complexity – then the walk is not directionless after all.
To science, such a determination would not even be a speed bump on the road to future discovery. But to religionists and philosophers it is equally significant to the last science bell-ringer: that the universe had a beginning.