“Incorrect. It is the job of those who support a theory as the best explanation for a phenomenon to answer challenges to the weaknesses of their theory, not the other way around.”
No. Not all theories are as well documented or as empirically provable as relativity. You will note that even relativity is still a theory. Imperfect, but the best we can do so far on the subject.
There is no specific body that accepts theory into the body of science. You are free to ignore evolution as a theory if you wish. Even if you have no alternative. You are free to disprove it as best you can. But if you want to play in that sandbox, you gotta figure out what you think makes sense and explain it somehow.
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. It need not explain everything, and it surely doesn’t. It’s up to folks who study it to advance, extend, or disprove parts or all of the theory.
It’s not up to a theory to explain all inconsistencies that inevitably arise. Those who get emotionally invested in one outcome or another are not likely to succeed in doing anything
As I intimated previously, all the people I know who claim to believe in evolution have no deeper understanding of it than I do. Sure, evolution sounded good in my 7th grade "life science" class. Kinda sounds like BS to me now. But all I've studied since then is a Microbiology class in 10th grade and a survey Botany course sophomore year in college.
I don't read evolutionary biology journals for fun, nor would I be inclined to trust them now anyway, Lysenkoism being the dominant form of scientific inquiry these days.
“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.