Indeed, I have never disputed the utility of Newton, nor should we fail to appreciate his incredible achievements (calculus etc).
The point I was striving to make here is that despite some theory appearing to describe reality, its expectations closely aligning with reality, it can nevertheless turn out to be absolutely wrong - not in the sense that calculated values deviate very slightly from measured values, but in the sense the principles, assumptions and mechanisms it assumes are at work are fundamentally wrong.
Newton's theory is very wrong about time, about simultaneity, it is very wrong about the speed at which gravitation changes can be propagated, it is very wrong about the nature of space, the nature of the interaction between masses and very wrong about what light does in a gravitational field.
Yes, calculations done using GR and NG for the most part are so close it doesn't matter, but a theory is far more than a way to calculate values, it is a model, a description of what is believed to constitute nature, it is in this sense that my doubts about evolution should be understood.
(It's very interesting too that one of the solutions of the "field equations" of GR simplifies down to Newton's inverse square law, this is explain why NG was so successful, its a special case of a more complex general scenario).
Just because many observations seem to align with the expectations of evolution, it could nevertheless be hugely wrong and I think it is.