Evolution isn't really all that robust. The rigor of a science is largely dependent on its level of testability and repeatedly - which is essentially nil for macroevolution. Perhaps one day we'll be able to construct entire worlds and run experiments billions of years long, but until that time, evolution is more of a "well, it seems right" model than anything else.

The reason we teach evolution rather than creationism has far less to do with evolution being a rigorous science than it does creationism not being science at all. Science is the study of the natural world, so the moment you introduce a supernatural element, you're not doing science. It doesn't matter if you call that supernatural element "God" or "annoyed immortal super-biologists trying to prove evolution in a controlled laboratory environment so they don't have to listen to intelligent design proponents any more".

Once you grasp this distinction, you'll also understand why science isn't about truth. It might very well be the truth that aircraft are kept aloft by invisible gnomes stacked on top of one another. But claiming invisible gnomes exist isn't science - understanding the natural rules by which those invisible gnomes stack and provide lift to airfoils is.

Failure to understand this distinction is at the root of most belief in pseudoscience. If an evolutionary biologist comes up to you and says "I think we evolved from apes", they've got a pretty strong argument for it. If the same guy comes up to you and says "eat your carrots or your descendants a million years from now won't be able to fly using their eyebrows like all the other kids", you'd be well justified in laughing at them.

Evolution by natural selection is better thought of as a model rather than a predictive science. Still, it is more "robust" than say the Big Bang theory. We can observe micro-evolution in a bottle of fast growing and reproducing bacteria but we'll likely never re-create a mini- Big Bang.