Facts successfully explained do carry weight and cannot be ignored; facts that don't fit are not necessarily fatal to the central ideas behind a hypothesis.Good scientific judgment is the art of weighing all these variables and properly evaluating the big picture.Consequently, the complaint that evolution is merely a (scientific) theory is a little like saying that an athlete is merely a gold-medal winner!) If there is one thread running through the scientific world, it is an emphasis on the total picture.To sum up our first point, the shrinking-sun argument rests squarely on a naive extension of a rate measured over a relatively short period of time.It's the type of blunder one might find in a high school science project.
Scientists are trained to overcome a one-shot, "cowboy" mentality.
Scientific hypotheses are rated according to their credibility; as more and more data support a scientific hypothesis, the greater our confidence in it.
If that hypothesis fits into a common pattern, successfully interlocking with established theories, then it gets another big plus.
Even if such a "proof" were technically correct, it would likely shoot down only a weak model of the theory.
Deep truths are seldom grasped whole; early models are often flawed in some of their particulars.