>That's a pretty huge "but" to the theory of evolution, one
>that should be acknowledged. This caveat, mind you, is already
>acknowledged in terms of Newton's laws, Moore's law, etc, yet
>you're unwilling to concede it regarding evolution, which is
>much more of a stab in the dark than those.
>
>1) I've already stated that no theory (in science or
>mathematics) is ever proven to the ridiculous degree of
>absolute certainty you're insisting upon. One can only
>disprove theories.

Mathematics can be 100% exact, as it is based on manmade definitions. As it IS the rules, not someting that the rules are mapping.

>2) Newtonian physics is known to be incorrect. It is a useful
>guideline for objects of masses and velocities similar to
>those found in our daily lives, however. But unlike Darwinian
>evolution, it is known to be inaccurate.

The incorrectness is so small that you don't have to take it into account in most macroscopic world events. It's true that it's incorrect in the microscopic world. However, it is important to note that it still explains well the events it was used to explain back in the day people thought it was accurate in everything. Thus, people who believed in it back in the day were better off than people who just said 'I don't know.'.

It's the same with evolution. The details will change, but you'll be better off believing it than saying 'I don't know'. It's safe to say that most of it is correct.