They had used the word gravity, but it hadn't been quantified and explored, but they hadn't used it much in relation to what we now think of as gravity.
No superstition at all, and I'm not talking about article bloat. I'm talking about sample sets too small to be scientifically useful. Look up the Mt Graham squirrel, that's a squirrel that environmentalists "proved" was a seperate species because they "averaged" as slightly larger than squirrels of the same species on different mountains. Of course their sample set was only 12 squirrels, and they did a plain average not a mean average, so if one of them was a fatty it completely skewed their results. That is a classic example of laughable set of data, getting more data wouldn't have created article bloat.
No it isn't the choice I have to make. That's the choice YOU are trying to force upon me by committing the fallasy of the excluded middle. And of course the root of science is to explain forces of nature as not so simple. "Simply a force of nature" is a phrased used by people that don't like science to discourage scientific investigation, it's a way to write things off as not needing investigation. Science believes in investigating everything, that's part of the fun.
You're not referring to 'big science' so much as over-classification, which I understand is a common complaint. But consider with what evidence a new 'species' is often introduced by paleontologists.
"Simply a force of nature" is a phrased used by people that don't like science
That's a complaint made by someone who understands neither what is meant by an irreducible force or nature nor science, itself. I told you gravity was a bad example.
Returning to evolutionism, have you conceived a theory, yet? since I think we're both of the mind that it is NOT a a force of nature. There is a theory as to cause. What exactly - in your words - is that theory?