I detect a trap being laid. ... So let me untangle several things in
Steve's question, in hopes, perhaps vain, of avoiding some trap.
Not all truth is scientific. Science aims for that portion of truth that
exposes itself to a certain type of rigor, especially empirical test.
I would accept evolution within science: (1) if it could be sufficiently
demonstrated (anywhere, in the lab, in breeding pens, in the field), or (2)
if it exposed itself to serious risk and falsification. It does neither, so
it is not science.
Evolutionists are desperate to show their theory is testable science. (My
book catalogs and debunks their many attempts.) They create the illusion
that their theory is testable. I avoid saying their tests are "not
logical", simply because those words are not very revealing about how the
illusion is constructed, and the illusion is constructed in many different
ways. Some times they use a ruse like a three-shell game at the carnival.
Other times they use misdirection. Other times they use a reverse, such as
claiming that a demonstration of Lamarkian inheritance (a potent
evolutionary mechanism that many evolutionists still seek) would be a
"refutation" of their views. Other times they assault the criteria of
science itself. It is a sad sorry history of ingenious, diverse, yet
mistaken attempts.
I'll stop there, hoping I have successfully traversed the mined field.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128