The theory of evolution and its contribution to speciation has reached the highest level of acceptance (no laws in biology) even though it can not really be formally "tested" (at least for macro-evolution). It gained this level of acceptance due to observation (including assembling fossil records) as well as great leaps in the field of molecular biology which identified the mechanism to support the observed biology of natural selection. The compartmentalizing of all science as being only that which can be tested in controlled experiments is a common tactic of those that want to cast doubt on the evolutionary process. None of us were there when species were evolving, but that does not mean science does not support it. I have used some obvious ridiculous examples to drive home some points, and must also say that Lemarck turned out to not be completely wrong either based on our recent understanding of epigentics (but pretty darn wrong on speciation). Traits (genes) can indeed be turned on by environmental conditions and then transferred to offspring. BTW -"parallel science" and "alternative facts" are not the same as "alternative thinking" or postulating reasonable alternative hypotheses. They are rather postulates that run counter to the mass of evidence based on cherry-picked evidence taken out of context. These terms have actual definitions that are not "alternative definitions":)
I won't take this any further because PB isn't really the right forum, but whether "evolution" is established depends on how we define "evolution."
If it means change over time, this is well established. Heck, we can see the fossil record that this is true. If it means variation within limits, microevolution, this also is observed. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is just one example, but we can also see it in fish that are well adapted to local conditions. Think Fla LMB in warm climates versus N LMB in cooler climates.
If it means major changes, or macroevolution, this has never been observed via random natural processes. Neither has abiogenesis, life from non-life. Given what molecular biology has shown about the complex functionally specified information systems needed to run even a "simple" single celled organism, the failure of randomness/blind chance is to be expected.
So far as we can tell from thousands of years of observations, such systems are built solely by an intelligent agent. But that scientific fact is not compatible with philosophical materialism, so is rejected.
For anyone interested in delving into intelligent design theory, I recommend evolutionnews dot org or uncommondescent dot com
That's all I have to say on the subject here.
