I don't disagree that most scientific theories are incomplete. That doesn't mean that they are wrong. If they were wrong, then there wouldn't be a preponderance of the world's scientific community wholehearedly supporting them. Take radiometric age determination for instance. Creationists are arguing high and low that radioisotopic dating is flawed and that therefore, the world cannot be as old as we claim. The problem with their areguments is that they aren't flawed at all. The science is very well understood (the fact that it comes straight out of our work in the field of atomic power escapes them, for some reason). Now, do you really believe that the thousands of laboratories around the world who conduct radioisotopic dating every day would be wasting their time with these methods if they didn't work? Yeah, I don't either.
Oh, and for the record, unlike the existence of God, we have plenty of empirical evidence to support all of the above theories. So no, it's not like the existence of god. Not by a long shot.
Personal revelation is, by definition, first person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's personal revelation over that of another. A farmer in Kansas may be an upstanding, honest, god-fearing man, but we still need hard evidence that a UFO landed in his corn field.
In contrast, it is difficult to ignore the fact of gravity when anyone can readily demonstrate its existence by dropping a soild red ball and allowing it to naturally fall to the ground. Explaining what gravity is, howerver, is another matter entirely, since we still, after all these centuries, don't know what it is, though we have clues, and are making progress every day.
It all boils down to burden of proof. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionionary scientists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
And it is not enough to prove that a theory is wrong. You have to provide an alternative that better explains the phenomenon in question than the previous theory does. That's how the scientific method works. In addition, most theories don't replace previous ones, but rather abridges them. Einstein didn't replace Newton's work. He built upon it's foundation and greatly enhanced it's predictive powers.
Darwin wasn't the first to conceive of something like the theory of evolution. Others were working on it as well. What Darwin did was synthesize all of what was then known into one working hypothesis, which he then used to test it with the feild data that he and others had collected. When that data verified his hypothesis, he then formulated a formal theory of biological evolution, most of which has been shown to be accurate and relevant today.
