This is not true.
One does not and can not observe "a law" or "a theory". In both cases you are observing the consequences of the mechanisms at work. Whether or not our descriptions of those mechanisms are accurate has naff all to do with whether they occur. Zero causality, in other words, in the direction you are looking.
Putting law and theory in bold as you have done implies a "rightness hierarchy" that simply does not exist.
And it can negate those questions, and has done time and time again, which is why people are no longer inclined to give full explanations.
The fact that the question is asked on a site where the answer is already available in multiple locations is usually an effective indicator that the asker is not interested in the details of the response.
In any case, in debate one is perfectly entitled to take a counter-argument no further than the identification of the opponent's logical errors.
Firstly, I am not talking about public support. I am talking about subjective appraisal. The two are not the same, and only the latter has anything to do with the matter at hand.
Secondly, whether or not "science takes money" has nothing to do with determined outcomes (well, unless it's pretend science - like L'Oreal trialling their new product on a whopping 200 women then telling us what percentage of them reported shinier follicles. That's a whole other game though).
This is an intellectually dishonest comparison, and the latter half is a strawman.
Gravity predicts the dog will fall. Evolution does not predict spontaneous cross-species changes in individual organisms.
If you want to see evolution in action on the order of species differentiation you might try something that has much larger populations and much shorter generation times, such as bacteria - which very much have been observed evolving.