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?
No I'm refering to science done with too small a sample set, which is how most science starts. It's a natural by-product of science. Big science requires even bigger sample sets, larger than one person could possibly collect in their lifetime, but big science always starts with the work of one person. They do what they can, publish their findings and start us on a new road.
I have no theory as to the cause, I don't have the background necessary to form a theory that would even be as good as Darwins. But I can see in the fossil record that it happens, and it must have a cause, my own lack of ability to theorize a cause doesn't mean it does happen.