OTOH, the evolutionist must assemble a complex and enormous volume of theory and hypothetical data over a very long time to come up with anything that will be considered acceptable by evolutionist constituents.
Close, but it doesn't work exactly that way.
Science starts with real (not hypothetical) data. Those are things that can be measured in some way, and on which there is little disagreement. Most anyone can verify the observations if there is any doubt. Sometimes established facts can change, but more often new facts are added.
Things in this category would include facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.
Based on these data points, scientists seek explanations. These explanations begin with hypotheses. Hypotheses are tentative explanations about the natural world, or concepts that are not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.
There could be a number of different hypotheses for the same set of facts, and many hypotheses for overlapping sets of facts.
The next step involves testing those hypotheses. Where possible laboratory experiments could be conducted, but in some fields you just can't do that. The next best way of testing an hypothesis is by generating predictions. "If this hypothesis is accurate, then X must have occurred [or could not occur]."
Many a fine hypothesis has fallen victim to stubborn little facts that can't be explained, and just refuse to go away. Gradually, in most cases the hypotheses are dropped or modified, resulting in a single broad explanation that accounts for all relevant facts, and allows accurate predictions to be made. That is called a theory. There is usually no more than one theory at a time for a given set of facts. [String theory is actually an hypothesis, but even scientists are not always precise in their use of terms.]
But back to your post -- I wouldn't worry overmuch about evolutionists and evolutionists' constituents, and having to assemble some "complex and enormous volume of theory and hypothetical data over a very long time." That's already been done. It started centuries ago, and was given a boost by Darwin 150 years ago.
And it didn't come down from the top, from some mystical "evolutionists;" it was meticulously assembled beginning with individual facts, and small, simple explanations, by tens of thousands of scientists from all around the world working in hundreds of different disciplines. This body of research has grown, with much testing and verification, into the modern theory of evolution.
And its doing just fine, even though fundamentalists often disagree with it for religious reasons. So don't worry overmuch. Let scientists take care of these things, eh? They are the ones who are trained for it.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
