Here's the way to check:
A theory (in science) is an idea or a group of ideas with predictions that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence.
Given the huge number of verified predictions, evolutionary theory is indeed as secure as gravitational theory. Actually more secure. We know why evolution works, but we aren't still entirely sure why gravity works.
A partial list of verified predictions will be given, if anyone doesn't know what they are.
Maybe you'll just believe anything they tell you without question.
They made you feel smart doing so too.
Those who are less sensitive to this peer pressure are deemed less intelligent.
The authority of truth versus the authority AS truth...
But where your argument fails is that while mutation and selection are certainly true phenomena, it can not, or a least has not been shown to be able to, write new purposeful data in the data carrier (DNA).
And THAT is the CLAIM they make, but without scientific evidence to support that claim.
I guess they didn't tell you that...
Comparing it to gravity is just ridiculous.
Technically, evolution is the observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory explains it.
Well, no.
Mutation and selection are factual, but the emergence of specialized traits, organs and organisms is not.
And you know darn well that THAT is the claim they make.
But it is merely ASSUMED.
And they have no other choice, because it has to be a NATURALISTIC (a belief system) explanation.
But you're a bit confused about "NATURALISM." Your confusion depends on conflating ontological naturalism ("nature is all there is") with methodological naturalism ("we can only use science to investigate natural things").
Hence, science (or plumbing, or auto repair, etc) are methodologically naturalistic, but not ontologically naturalistic. A plumber can be a theist, but he won't try to clear your drain by exorcising the demons of blockage.
Science and plumbing can't deal with God. But scientists and plumbers can.
Does that help?
Science, or rather POPULAR science, is naturalistic in every way.
The scientific community does not accept anything else.
So, even when intelligent design stares them in the face, it can not be design, it HAS to be unintended results of dead unconscious laws of nature.
It's a matter of finance too.
Lots of money and platform for naturalism and atheism.
People with power wanting you to think certain ways, and dismiss certain other ways.
It's what people in power do.
>> This does not mean, of course, that natural science is not suited to discover how things work.
The medical sciences rely on research and discovery by means of scientific endeavour.
You see, how things work is subject to the laws of nature.
BUT, how it came to be, how it came to exist or emerge, is a totally different subject.
Fact is, living nature exists, we are a part of it.
So through time and effort we discover how it works, or at least, we try to figure it out.
So yeah, biology and medical sciences are like a complex form of plumbing or electronics perhaps.
We are limited to approaching it naturalistically.
Fine, no problem.
But in this topic it's obviously about the ORIGINS of living nature, which we can not observe here and now.
We can't simulate it either.