That certainly works for me! While I have perhaps more confidence than you that the preponderance of evidence for evolution--much like the preponderance of evidence for gravitation--is sufficient to ensure that the theory will be modified, elaborated, improved, but never falsified, the fact remains that in science ALL truth is tentative, never absolute. It seems to me that this is what you are saying and, if so, I tentatively agree!
I do wish to add one thing, however. Science builds upon replicable evidence, which is not
quite the same as "repeatable evidence". Evidence, to be replicable, does not require that it result from an experiment which can be repeated; it can result from data which remains available to be
observed repeatedly, and which will appear the same to anyone observing it, provided that the observer knows what to look for.
Lest that last clause seem like a lame cop-out, let me give an example. In the early part of the last century, an eminent European archaeologist, the foremost European expert in paleolithic tool industries, examined the floor of Olduvai Gorge and reported that he found absolutely no evidence of fabricated tools at that site. Some years later, Louis Leakey examined that same site, found that it was virtually impossible to walk on the floor of Olduvai Gorge without stepping on fabricated tools, and he came back with the photographs to support that claim! How did this happen? The answer was horrifyingly simple. The European archaeologist was looking for tools made out of
flint, because that is what European stone tools are made out of. Leakey, being a native of Kenya, was
not looking for flint; it would never have
occurred to him to look for flint, which was simply not available in East Africa! So the European expert saw no tools, and Leakey saw tools everywhere. So, what's my point? Anyone who goes to Olduvai Gorge and looks for stone tools there will find what Leakey found--
provided he's not looking for flint! And that's what I mean by "replicable evidence".
Regards,
Jim