Your arguments here sound the same as those of the Global Warming Alarmists.
As would arguments on any scientific subject.
It's the nature of science itself.
But there are huge differences between the "Anthropogenic Global Warming" (AGW) hypothesis and evolution theory.
We begin with the fact that evolution theory was first developed independent of government grants or political agendas.
It was and remains purely a scientific exercise.
By contrast, from the beginning, AGW research was government sponsored and politically infused.
Second, evolution theory has been developed, tested and confirmed for over 150 years, while by contrast: the AGW hypothesis is only decades old, at most.
Indeed, prior to circa 1980, AGW was preceded by scientific & political fears of an imminent new Ice Age!
Third, as was learned in recent years, although AGW is based on huge databases of weather information processed through massively large super-computers, come to find out: much of the data was skewed and the super-computer programs were biased to produce dramatic results for political purposes.
More importantly, AGW has been grasped to the bosoms of world-wide leftists who see it as their next great train-ticket to world political domination.
FRiend, you may realize that the left's old slogans -- i.e., "workers of the world unite", etc. -- don't have the same, ah, cachet they did, say, 80 years ago.
So the left needs some new cause to propel them to absolute domination of every human on the planet, and they see "Anthropogenic Global Warming" as their new big ticket.
But no similar motivations exist behind the basic scientific theory of evolution.
Indeed, it is simply one of many related scientific theories which describe the natural world as we know it today.
In other words: if basic evolution theory is wrong, then so is all of natural-science, and that is a hypothesis for which there is no -- zero, zip, nada -- supporting evidence.