Evolution is a philosophy because scientific method can never be applied to it. We have no way of researching it, because we have no way of reproducing the moments in which life was created on Earth. If it is a fact then scientist would not still call it a theory.
Statistically speaking it is very improbable that random chance gave rise to order (not to mention it is against the PROVEN Laws of Science).
Darwin said that if it could be proven that life forms did not become more complicated over a series of successive improvements, then his theory would be proven wrong.
Micheal Denton an atheist wrote a book called evolution: a theory in Crisis, He spent the first part of the book ripping religion. And then went on to make his case-
And he is not alone in those beliefs other scientist believe the same.
I am not anti- science but I am Anti- Dogma and the theory of Evo. is sometimes just that.
I believe in Micro but not Macro.
The rest is more in line with Intelligent Design because Intelligent Design is more inline with the ACTUAL LAWS of SCIENCE.
But this is a free country and I do not mean to step on anothers beliefs, we are free to worship as we choose...
There is a misunderstanding of what a theory is on your part. As was mentioned in a reply to you, we currently use General Relativity to explain gravity and it is "merely" a theory despite having made some astoundingly counterintuitive predictions that subsequently were proven true. But the real point is that just because a theory is not fact does not mean that the theory might also be far away from truth. These things are called theory in science because often the minutia of a theory has issues and must be corrected, and yes rarely there are also issues where major parts of a theory have to be changed.
But if, for example, you look at the history of some of the competing theories in theoretical physics you will see that while many theories such as M-theory, String Theory, Supersymmetry, and many others have competed and occasionally replaced each other as the top theory as they were refined. But ultimately they all, at their core, are extremely similar and attempt to explain the exact same phenomenon...just through different means.
In this way, when we say the "Theory of Evolution" the word "theory" does not imply that the process evolution describes could be non-existant but that our description of those processes might not be 100% accurate. Even if evolution is ever replaced by another theory the new theory will look remarkably similar to evolution because it will have to explain the processes Evolution explained while also explaining whatever shortcoming evolution had.
Now, as far as your bit on statistics is concerned you betray yourself as someone unfamiliar with evolution because this argument is one that should be made against abiogenesis and not evolution. Abiogenesis is the current scientific theory have how life began, evolution is the theory of how it has changed once it began. Even still your point is wrong as we have a very good idea of how the first life was created and the specific circumstances...but that is a whole other topic so I'll let it rest.
As for your reference to the laws of science you will have to be more specific because it is simply impossible for me to address every law of science while assuming I understand what argument you're trying to make from what little specifics you've provided.