Evolution is as much a fact as gravity

Anyone who's been keeping up with the Origins debate has heard the claim that evolution is as much a fact as gravity. [1]
Is it? Let's take a look.

Quotes and comments;

A. 'Starting with the great creationist physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. There is an ongoing effort to unify all four fundamental forces into a single equation or ‘theory of everything’, with no success thus far. Gravity remains the least understood force.' [2.]

- It seems odd to me that evolutionists would compare evolution with gravity, when gravity remains such a mysterious process. If they were more prudent they might rather say, that we understand the origin of life as little as we understand gravity. They don't say this because it would break the taboo against being honest with the public. [As they say in the hallowed halls of academe; 'there's no fun in being a teacher if you can't get students to believe things that aren't true.']

B. 'Gravity cannot be shielded in any way. Intervening objects, whatever their make-up, have no effect whatsoever on the attraction between two separated objects. This means that no antigravity chamber can be built in the laboratory.
Neither does gravity depend on the chemical composition of objects, but only on their mass, which we perceive as weight (the force of gravity on something is its weight — the greater the mass, the greater the force or weight.) Blocks composed of glass, lead, ice or even styrofoam, if they all have equal mass, will experience (and exert) identical gravitational forces. These are experimental findings, with no underlying theoretical explanation.' [2.]

- We might say (and I'm always eager to help evolutionists reformulate their theory) that the origin of living organisms is at least as mysterious as the process called gravity. We might also say that there is no underlying theoretical explanation for how life can come from non-life. Just as there's no way to explain gravity (we can only describe it) there's no way to explain abiogenesis and the 'emergence' of complex, specified information. [3.]
- What school teachers and professors hate most of all is to admit ignorance. It's only the great thinkers who seem capable of doing this.

C. 'Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. Cosmic strings and gravity waves have also been suggested, but none have been confirmed. We simply do not know how objects physically interact with each other over vast distances.' [2.]

- This being the case, why is it Darwinists insist on comparing evolution to a process so mysterious? I thought Evolution was a simple process, understandable to even a child or a fundamentalist.

Perhaps gravity arose by chance, in a warm, little pond; or perhaps at the side of a deep sea vent. Perhaps it rode into the universe on a stray comet. (What do you mean I'm not being serious? These are all serious answers aren't they?)

Summary;
When evolutionists say E. is as much a fact as gravity they of course are saying it's just as real a phenomenon. i.e. you can't deny it anymore than you can deny evolution. This is rhetorically powerful, but factually weak. The hard data of gravity is measurable; can be put into a neat equation. [4.] This can't be done for what's called evolution. (Never mind the problem of what kind of E. we're talking about.)

Evolution is most assuredly Not like gravity. It's a philosophical howler to compare rocks with living organisms for one thing. Evolution is not equal to biology, or to living organisms. These are the data; evolution is only an interpretation of the data. No one denies that living organisms exist; no one denies they had an origin. No one denies that organisms change over time. No creationist is denying any of these things. What were debating is the best explanation for these things; not that they exist.

E. apologists like to pretend that the origins issue is a simple one; as simple as an apple falling off a tree. Well, the subject isn't simple. It took a genius to figure out the basic law of gravity; it will take a greater than Newton to figure out the origin of complex (life giving) information. Let's not forget that what Newton did was 'merely' describe gravity; he didn't give us an account of what it is or where it came from. In a somewhat similar way biologists can describe living organisms, but they can't tell you what 'life' is, or where it came from, or how living organisms came to be. (I don't think anyone will ever be able to do this.) Scientists (at least theorists) have had a tendency in our time to become megalomaniacal in their thinking; to imagine they can answer any and all questions it's possible to ask. I see this as a delusion.

Notes;
1. 'A new article in Current Biology about Darwin Day celebrations quoted Johnjoe McFadden from the University of Surrey stating that "evolution is no longer just a theory. It is as much a fact as gravity or erosion." - Evolution News
2. Gravity the mysterious force - Donald DeYoung
3. Having said this, it may be possible one day to give a materialist explanation of gravity; but I don't think this will ever be possible for life forms.
4. 'The inverse-square nature of this equation is intriguing. After all, there is no essential reason why gravity should behave in this way. In a chance, evolving universe, some random exponent like r1.97 or r2.3 would seem much more likely. However, precise measurements have shown an exact exponent out to at least 5 decimal places, 2.00000. As one researcher put it, this result seems ‘just a little too neat.’ We may conclude that the gravity force shows precise, created design. Actually, if the exponent deviated just slightly from exactly 2, planet orbits and the entire universe would become unstable.' - DeYoung
6. A major reason why there is so much confusion in the origins debate is that people persist in using words in different ways. eg. theory and fact; sometimes theory is portrayed as less certain than a fact, and sometimes as being more certain. Fact is sometimes portrayed as mere data, but at other times as certain knowledge. (I sometimes wonder if we don't need a new vocabulary.)