The existence of gravity, germs and cells no linger fall into the area of "theory" because we have have repeatable, testable evidence of their existence.
The existence of gravity is supported by the "Law of gravity" which can be repeatably shown to be an attraction betwenn tow bodies based solely on their masses. This attraction can be calculated matematically and tested over and over again, always yielding the same results.
The theory of germs and cells was proven with the advent of the microscope, and not only their existence, but their vast complexity was further uncovered by the electron microscope.
This is not the case for the theory of evolution. Yes we see similarities within phyla, across phyla and across species. We have hypothesized that these similarities might be the result of gradual or spontaneous changes as a result of changes in environment. However, there are many areas of evidence that refute this hypothesis as well that have already been mentioned in this thread.
Unlike gravity, germs and cells, we have yet to actually see hard evidence of "evolution" or to be able to repeatably test the hypotheses. We have been able to cause the production some amino acids in a very controlled environment, but not the right kinds, in the right combination and not in any environment that mimics any of the scientifically assumed early Earth atmospheres. We have not encountered any "beneficial" mutations, whereby new information is added to the DNA of an organism. Instead, through natural selection, we see LOSS of information over time. We see species going into extenction, but never a new species coming into existence.
Where we once thought that the DNA information was mostly composed of large areas of uncoded "junk" DNA, recent discoveries now show that those areas are filled with introns and telomeres, that act as spaces, tabs and punctuation and are necessary for the proper replication process.
Also, based on recent appraisal of the fossil record, only about 0.1% of the assumed fossil record has been actually found. When this is displayed graphically, it becomes very apparent that the fossil record is of little support for the evolutionary hypothosese.
The fact that change, or evolution, occurs WITHIN species (micro-evolution) has never been disputed and has been verified through application of Mendel's Law which addresses the mathematical limits of variations that can be expected to be found within a species.
Because of the complexity of even the simplest life-forms, the complexity of DNA and accuracy of the DNA replication process, the sudden appearance of major fully evolved life-forms and the evidence loss rather than gain of DNA information over time, I am far more inclined toward the theory of "Intelligent Design", than toward the theory of evolution.
"Intelligent Design" does not purport to answer the question of "who", but does offer a possible "how" for the existence of life on Earth. It supports the classification of life based on common design and DNA information, the fossil record, the scientific evidence that life could not have developed gradually in early Earth atmosphere, but appeared all at once, fully developed, capable of replication and procreation, with balance and purpose.
I am not in favor of teaching that a particular god, whether he be Hebrew, Greek or Hindu, created life in seven days or seventy million years, but I am in favor of teaching the strengths and weaknesses of theories with an open mind.
Son-cerely,
Nate