Quote:It may not be a scientific theory, but it is a philosophical theory. It is testible by logic I assume.
Not exactly. It is ultimately a semantic issue - what is science. This is answered by 'judging a tree by it's fruit'. You consider difference 'definitions' of science, and see how well they reflect both the reality of the practice of science as well as the preception of science. My approach is the only one that captures the essence of science, while preventing a flood of mysticism, crackpotism and various clearly unscientific pursuits in the door. The claim that evolution is scientific is not supported by practicing academic evolutionists themselves, who prefer to be called natural historians. Rather, it is a tactic by those involved in a senseless battle between evolution and creationism, to try to put evolution out of reach. Ironically, in doing so, they make it very hard to eliminate as unscientific other theories such as intelligent design (or freediver's theory of sufficient genetic potential). The result is a huge academic mess, thrust upon researchers by extremists who see the various fields of study as pawns in an epic battle.
Quote:Why assume that a field of knowledge can't turn the definition of science on it's head.
Because it is a definitional identity.
Quote:It seems that you are giving credence to a Definition that should also be forthcoming to a Description.
Huh?
Quote:What is concept called (if not theory) when it science is not up to the challange of testing it
I didn't say it wasn't a theory. I said it wasn't scientific. It is a historical theory.
Quote:Again. I am talking about Evolution the concept as a scientific TRUTH.
There is no such thing as scientific truth. Genuine scientists would never be so arrogant as to claim to have reached truth.
Quote:The mechanisms involved in explaining the process or mechanics of Evolution are theories. Theories that involve real science and testing and prediction where possible.
Natural selection is scientific. The rest isn't.