No Witnesses

The thing is, we're not even willing to give it the status of theory, because theory is a pretty strong statement. It means that it satisfies all evidence and is so compelling that we grant it the tentative status of "best explanation we've come up with yet."So basically, what that statement says is, "{Explanations about} life's origins should be considered as as close to fact as we can get, not fact." The point is, life can evolve regardless of what its origins are. It could have been poofed into existence by God, it could have evolved from non-life, it could have been planted by aliens, etc. Once it got started, though, it has evolved.

I agree, but that is not what the word "theory" means. Theory means "tentatively accepted as true" or in other words, "as close to fact as we can get." First of all, science doesn't assume evolution is very random at all. There is a bit of randomness in exactly what mutations a particular offspring has, but that randomness is overwhelmed by the non-random aspect of natural selection, and the sheer numbers of offspring and mutations that occur in every generation.The only time randomness really takes a driver's seat is when a small population gets cut off from a larger one, or there is a bottleneck due to most of a species dying. In that case, the Founder effect comes into play and the randomness of exactly what variations are left can dictate a bit of how evolution can proceed.Secondly, we have a very robust theory (notice the word) on how evolution works based on mounds and heaps and mountains of evidence. For it to be drastically different than we've discovered would essentially negate our entire understanding of how our senses and mind react to the physical world. It would be akin to finding out that despite the fact that our computers work, we're actually entirely wrong about electricity.