“No. Not all theories are as well documented or as empirically provable as relativity.”
Of course not. Which makes them weaker theories and more likely to be incorrect in some of their basic assumptions and conjectures. However, many of those theories at least have a hope of experimental confirmation in the future, while evolution really has very little hope of that.
“Science in general accepts evolution because it seems to answer the objective facts as we see them as best as we are able to explain it. It’s just the best way to explain biological diversity so far.”
Scientists accept it because it appeals to their existing biases and assumptions, and they defend it despite the inability to confirm it through the scientific method because they would rather dress up philosophy as science than say “we don’t know”.
“It’s not up to a theory to explain all inconsistencies that inevitably arise.”
Lack of skepticism of a theory that produces inconsistencies is a sign that you aren’t doing science anymore, but defending orthodoxy for orthodoxy’s sake.
“Lack of skepticism of a theory that produces inconsistencies is a sign that you aren’t doing science anymore”
This is true, and I’ve never said otherwise. ALL theories should at some level (some more than others) be treated with skepticism. I don’t think any legitimate scientist would disagree with this.