Yours facts are right, but your conclusions are muddled. There is no particular scientific definition of fact, but one might say that it is a fact that light bends in the presence of a massive object. General Relativity is the theory that provides the explanatory framework for why and how much light bends because of gravity. The theory explains the facts, which is exactly what has been told to you repeatedly. Note also that it is still referred to as the General Theory of Relativity, not the fact of relativity or the law of relativity, even though its predictions have been confirmed with great accuracy. Theory is as good as it gets in science.
The situation is nearly identical with evolution. There are a large number of facts in biology: mutations occur, allele frequencies change over time, organisms show certain patterns of geographical, morphological and genetic similarities, etc. The theory of evolution (which is actually a set of theories) explains those facts. The theory is tested by its ability to explain existing facts, to predict new facts, and to guide researchers into fruitful areas of investigation. It does all of those things extremely well, which is why it is the backbone of biology and one of the great scientific achievements of all time.
I don't know where you get the idea (or the gall) to think that you should be the one to tell scientists what is good science and what isn't, when you don't know the facts and don't understand the theory. What standing do you have for making such a decision? Scientists accept and use evolution because it does the things scientific theories are supposed to do, and no other theory comes close to its ability.
