Completely, totally false.
I have a B.S. with honors in Biology, and an M.D., and I specialize in Clinical Microbiology.
Biology, like all sciences, is not a catalog of facts or concepts. Biology, like all sciences, is a system of testing facts or concepts.
Microevolution occurs every day, is trivial to test, and withstands any possible challenge.
Macroevolution (Darwinism) has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms.
Screeds like this one from the Yale research fellow are expressions of religious belief, not science.
Yep, but they certainly disguise it as science.
Micro-gravity, occuring in the vacuum between stars, has never been demonstrated, is probably untestable, and is subject to many criticisms. Undoubtedly, Gravity only occurs close to large mass accumulations. there is no credible evidence that it exists in empty space.
So what? It is consistent with the facts. Also, each of the mechanical elements of the overall theory are testable. It remains a valid scientific theory, because of that.
Re:The "screed" as you call it.
"Evolution is not an isolated concept that can be expediently omitted from a high-school biology syllabus. Rather, it is the single unifying concept of modern biology. It unites all areas of biology, from ecology to physiology to biochemistry and beyond. Without it, students are denied a framework to understand how these different areas are related and interdependent. "
Other than the use of the word unify, it's basically true. It is a theory that consists of a set of minor theories and hypothesis that provide an overall understanding of how present life forms got here. The "unity" signifies only that it's interdisciplinary. There is no faith here and it is not a religion.
"Biology, like all sciences, is a system of testing facts or concepts."
Biology is a scientific discipline that focuses on all direct aspects of life. It is a body of knowledge, a subset of science. The scientific method is a system for testing facts and concepts.
So, I guess the fact that genetically-based phylogenies track the previously-known familiy trees is just one huge mass of coincidences?
What explanation, other than common descent, allows one to make true generalizations like
"If a retrotransposon, pseudogene, etc, is found in both whales and cows, it will also be found in hippos"
"If a retrotransposon, etc, is found in both black bears and brown bears, it will also be found in polar bears"
In both chimps and baboons, then also people and gorillas
In both dogs and cats, then also bears.
And so on and so on. In every known case (known ot me, at least), the predictions based on evolution have proven to be true.