I believe they would correct and you would be wrong. The theory of evolution is on more solid ground right now than the theory of gravitation.
This may take some explanation: The fact that things fall, and that organisms change through time, are facts. There are millions of details, or facts, involved in this. The theories of gravitation and evolution seek to explain those facts.
That things fall is well understood; why things fall, and all of the ramifications, is not well understood. On the other hand, we seem to have a good handle on evolution, both the how and the why.
Of course, intra-species evolution is fact. It has been observed and we have exploited it to develop breeds and strains of flora and fauna. It is the inter-species sort that is theoretical. Then to posit that as “The Origin of the Species” requires great faith against all odds.
The mathematical formulations that suggest that macroevolution is impossible are only as good as their ability to accurately model systems. Other models produce different answers. As one example, an online lecture I have seen deals with this general subject.
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Besides, macroevolution is pretty well established. All it means is change at the species level. This can be seen in what are called ring species. In ring species, a geographical feature separates populations of some organism. Each local population can interbreed with the next, but the two endpoints, where they meet and close the ring, has populations which can't interbreed. That is the definition of a separate species. And, what is particularly interesting is that all the intermediates or "transitionals" (which many creationists say don't exist) are preserved intact for study.
Here is some additional information:
Ring species provide unusual and valuable situations in which we can observe two species and the intermediate forms connecting them. In a ring species:
- A ring of populations encircles an area of unsuitable habitat.
- At one location in the ring of populations, two distinct forms coexist without interbreeding, and hence are different species.
- Around the rest of the ring, the traits of one of these species change gradually, through intermediate populations, into the traits of the second species.
A ring species, therefore, is a ring of populations in which there is only one place where two distinct species meet. Ernst Mayr called ring species "the perfect demonstration of speciation" because they show a range of intermediate forms between two species. They allow us to use variation in space to infer how changes occurred over time. This approach is especially powerful when we can reconstruct the biogeographical history of a ring species, as has been done in two cases. Source
The theory of evolution is on more solid ground right now than the theory of gravitation.
***There are a bunch of theories of gravitation, not just one. There is the Law of Gravity, only one of those. But many nonscientists use the wrong meaning of the word Law when they discuss issues, usually heated items like evolution. In science, a law is simply an observation, or a set of observations. Keppler’s “laws” of planetary motion are simply observations.
A theory, on the other hand, is an attempted explanation of such observations, trying to suggest why or how. So when you say the theory of evo is on more solid ground now than the theory of gravity, there is some truth in that. That’s because we have no real good idea of why or how gravity works. But Kirchoff’s Current Law is a very strongly held observation, leading to tons of other strong theories about electricity.
I think the evos should use a different analogy than the “law” of gravity. It doesn’t work as well as, say, Kirchoff’s Current Law.