The biggest problem for evolution claiming to be science is that most of its’ claims are based on assumptions and interpretations of history. Nothing scientific nor empirical is involved in its’ most grandiouse claims.
Neiher are any of its’ weaknesses allowed to be discussed. I’d guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
I think you're talking about something other than, or at least much larger than, the theory of evolution. You seem to be talking about an alternate Creation Story or something (one not based on Genesis).
Different target entirely. You are railing at the Religion of "Evolution", which is (I agree) quite non-scientific at times.
But the scientific theory of evolution is much simpler, not grandiose at all. It seeks to explain the growth and interconnections of species over time, something that is so self-evident I don't feel it needs defense or explanation.
> Neiher are any of its weaknesses allowed to be discussed. Id guess from your own comments that neither of you two are even aware it has any weaknesses?
You're joking of course.
Did you actually read any of what I wrote? The entire business and purpose of scientific method is to challenge and disprove hypotheses, to postulate better ones based on observation, to make predictions that can be tested and disproven if incorrect, and to ferret out weaknesses.
Some theories are quite strong, and have few known weaknesses. Others are still hypotheses, with numerous weaknesses. Evolution (the scientific theory, not the religion) is quite robust, has withstood countless challenges, but has many more to go.
But Evolution-as-Religion is not science, any more than Creationism is science. It's religion, and can be debated as religion (or perhaps philosophy). You can't tart up a religious position as science just by calling it science, whether it's Evolution (the religion) or Intelligent Design (the religion).
Neither is amenable to the scientific method of inquiry, prediction, testing, and disproving. So they're not science -- it simply does not apply.
> Science most certainly does NOT have unlimited scope!!!
Sure it does (for all things where the scientific method applies, of course). To limit the scope of scientific inquiry, challenge, testing, etc. is to say that "it shall not go here". For what conceivable reason?
The only places science does not go are those where the scientific method does not apply -- religion, philosophy, emotion, metaphysics, etc. But the entire physical world, past, present, and future, is completely within the scope of science. And it is unlimited.
> They have even starting limiting what little they could see/observe when the consensus agreed to abide by naturalism. Acting as if there is no God b/c anything super-natural may not be repeated nor proven. And in the process many have made themselves and/or their science a god.
God is not amenable to the scientific method, and the scientific method does not apply to God. God is not science, and science is not God. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar and a fraud.