While this article is mainly exact, there are a few flaws in it. So please excuse my french, and don’t take it bad.
The first one is the difference between what and how. What describes the big picture, and how to give a more precise explanation. For example, I can tell someone what to do to increase their biceps: do push ups. And they can reply: but how do I do push ups? Then, I’ll explain to them how to do it. Therefore, a theory explains what is going on (the big picture), while a law gets more precise explaining how to calculate it with an equation. The theory of evolution is a set of logical statements and abstract thinking. However it doesn’t have laws because it only rests on comparative biology or genetics. The former is subject to the interpretation of observers, and the latter is too young and complex to rest on laws.
The second error is when you state that the theory of evolution is supported by enough evidence. However, in science enough is not enough. We are talking here of an experimental science (not to say a loose science). Only hard sciences (math and physics) can have laws. Other ones, like sociology, psychology or biology have only theories and principles. I’m a physicist for whom very unlikely possibilities are still probable until fully disproved. There is an infinitesimal probability that some god or alien randomly put fossils on our planet. It’s a silly perspective I don’t support, although impossible to evict. The fact is that smart scientists understand that we know almost nothing about our world.
And it is wrong to write: “...with a significant wealth of information supporting its validity.” You should have used the word probability instead of validity).
To broaden the subject, I would like to add that math is about making logical and abstract models, and physics is about reckoning event probabilities. Science is not about the truth. This is the role of religion. Science is about trying to explain the world, with most sciences having made sharp turns in the last decades. The only field that hasn’t changed is climate change (I find that repetition fun). It is the only field where people are absolutely sure of their theory, and act like a Middle-Age Spanish Inquisition. So, when denying climate change (at least you don’t say global warming) drives you up the wall, I would kindly suggest you to buy a rope and climbing shoes (for your safety) before reading John Clauser (2022 Nobel Prize of Physics), because before computing mathematical models, it is a physics problem.
I sincerely hope that my point of view will not offend you.
