Blixa
what you are proposing- emphasizing the "strong" part of evolution theory to convince people of "that part"'s correctness, if I have understood you right- is not necessarily a good method for defending scientific theories. You would only be conceding to some of their irrational demands.

First because it is in the nature of science to have loopholes in its explanation at any given time. Solving one problem always creats more problems and more unanswered questions.
Science and reliable scientific theories are defendable because no matter what their "weaknesses" are at any given time, the less successful theories are, well, less successful and/or wrong and the non-scientific "solutions" are nonsense and no real explanations at all.
Your "weakness" criterion is not really suitable, because that kind of "strength" that you are indirectly implying is never to be found in science. By adopting this approach you would be legitimising the demand for such "strength" in scientific theories before they are "good enough" to be "believed" or adopted and that is precisely what should be avoided.

The controversy about evolution is hot because of a deeper controversy: That of denying the legitimacy of science and of superiority of the worldview that is based on it to all others based on dogma (religious or otherwise, say communist for example). This is what the religious people, among others, have been pushing for all along.
The only reason they focus on Evolution is because they think it concerns an issue that their dogma is too specific about and hence can't be pushed under the rug as easily as they had managed to do about Physics and astronomy.

Evolution comes with its explanation of what the origin of life must have been like-ie what type of mechanisms "could" have been involved. That that part has still "more" unanswered questions changes nothing. If we are to apply "weakness" to it as a result of that, the rest of the theory would be as weak and attackable.

I'm pretty sure the "creationists" would embrace Evolution if they can have that "origin" part cloudy enough for them to insert their "intelliegnt design" in. Exactly the same way they embraced the Big Bang theory and thus the "rest of" cosmology and physics that led us to it, once they realized they could hide their dogma in the "initial conditions" or the "moment of creation". Their real folly would still remain unchallenged...well, actually we would be worse off because it would give them more room to maneuver. They can boast even more than they do now that they have no problem with "real science" since they only disagree with the "weak" and "problematic" parts which are
"still debatable".

Science comes with its unresolved problems and its strength and validity is independent of the fact that (even more) questions remain unanswered. It should be accepted the way it is with all the logical consequences of a worldview that is based on it.