Indeed, Allah holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them [in place] after Him.
Unsurprisingly, I believe that the laws of gravity hold the stars and planets in their orbits, not Allah. The evidence for this is surely beyond reasonable doubt - we wouldn't have the Mars Rover crawling around the surface of Mars right now unless all the sums about gravity were correct. As far as I'm aware this is also accepted by many Muslims - I wouldn't know what kind of percentages one way or the other.
For me, the lines you quote are metaphorical, not literal. They could have meaning in the general sense that Allah has created the universe in the first place including gravity as part of its structure - but once created, these laws operate by themselves. Are you familiar with the work of Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton etc? This is too much for me to summarise.
As far as I understand, at least some Muslims (but not all) accept most of what science has discovered - including gravity, particle physics, geology, meteorology and many other disciplines - with the notable exception of evolution. Very few if any Muslims seem to accept that men evolved from earlier species, ultimately leading back to common ancestry with the ape. They also don't accept evolution for any other animal or lifeform.
The great majority of atheists (perhaps all of them) would believe in the existence of evolution. However, they might not agree on the precise processes involved. Many people (including me) would agree that the mechanisms for evolution have not yet been satisfactorily described. In particular there is a big issue about how the very first, basic lifeform came about; and also an issue about whether natural mutation could account for species change within the time-frame available. There was a very long debate about this in another thread if you want to read more.
Leaving aside the detailed debate - the issue is, in principle, whether you choose to believe that science will eventually fill in all the explanation gaps that currently exist, or do you believe this will never happen, because here and there it will require a direct intervention from a divine being. In my view, the history of science strongly suggests the former is the correct answer. Applying the principle of Occam's Razor, if science has (over time) explained half the story in a coherent way, why should I not believe that it will one day explain the rest?
As I said before, in my view this neither proves nor disproves the existence of Allah or any other divine being. The Qu'ran is not a science book, it doesn't claim to be one, and it has nothing to add or subtract from scientific understanding, unless ordinary people choose to interpret it that way.