[ALPAPilot]

I think you missed my point. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity replaced Newtonian Mechanics in the realm of the small and the fast. A singular counter example is all that is required to upend a theory. You could use Arthur Eddington's observations of Mercury as one example. Newton's premise was that F=dp/dt. Heisenberg showed p was an unknowable quantity if you knew exactly where the object was.

But of course, classical mechanics is useful, that's why we studied it in Physics. Laplace was incorrect because Heisenberg showed it is impossible to know the position of the items of which nature is composed.

If someone asked me if I believe in Evolution, I would likewise say it is a useful theory that explains some observations. If they asked me if that would make me an athiest, or suggest that contradicts the scriptures, I would suggest they are traveling down the same dead end as Laplace.

[TXnMA]

My last undergrad year, I had 4 hours space for a full load; I chose a thermodynamics course over genetics. Otherwise, I would have had a BS in biology, to boot.

Nonetheless, like you, I consider "evolution" (in whatever beyond-Darwin state it now exists) merely to be our best effort -- so far -- to reconcile the fossil record with how life reached the present state of living forms here on earth. And, no, I don't equate evolution with cosmology, either -- nor do I "believe in" them. Rather, I study the evidence and see where it points -- relative to our present state of knowledge.

None of the above detract from my faith in the least -- OTOH, I do not necessarily sneer at their adherents for championing them -- and I definitely do not automatically characterize them as "evil", as some are wont to do.

That doesn't mean that I don't see the hand of our Creator revealed in all aspects -- micro to macro -- of His universe -- and rejoice in those revelations...