Crash writes:
There's no hierarchy of certainty that models graduate through.
Not officially, but there are gradations of certainty in the support of theories. My theory of host range expansion by a particular cerambycid is about a 4 or 5 on a scale of one to ten in terms of certainty. Newtons law of graviational pull is a 10.
Crash writes:
The reason that Newton's laws are laws and evolution is a theory is because Newton decided to call them "laws."
Crash - look at what you're saying. You think if they hadn't been totally verified by the observations of others we would still call them laws !? This guy died a couple centuries ago.
I agree with your suppport of evolution, but I think you were closer to the truth here:
Crash writes:
...this hilarious idea that there is some kind of hierarchy of scientific models, with "conjecture" at the bottom, "hypothesis" next, "theory" on top of that, and finally at the top, representing certainty about the universe is "law."
Theories vary greatly in the amount of supporting data they have from independent observations, hence we should attach varying levels of confidence in them.
The better way to counter the 'evolution is flawed' argument is simply to point out that only the specific details are being refined in particular contexts. The general mechanisms and processes have been demonstrated widely applicable and are generally agreed upon.