Evolution is not science, it meets none of the criteria or definitins of the word science.
>>That’s why I don’t have a problem with people who don’t understand something about science. Its only when they try to force teaching based on non-science I have a problem.
We should probably define terms here. By scientific theory I mean a model of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and/or capable of being tested through experiment.
To be a useful theory, the predictions need to be those that are not predicted by other theories.
Since ID does not make predictions it would not be a scientific theory by this definition.
I’m told that evolutionary theory does, in fact, make correct predictions. That would seem to contradict your statement and make evolutionary theory a scientific theory (and thus science). I don’t know enough biology to state that it is a useful theory but biologists tell me it is.
Some predictions (I’m just repeating what I have read elsewhere - I claim no great knowledge of biology). And I’m only gonna cite simple ones I can understand - there are apparently very complex predictions.
1. There are two types of whales baleen and teeth. Prediction: there must be a whale with both teeth and baleen.
2. Darwin found no Precambrian fossils. He said evolutionary theory required there to be such fossils.
3. Fossils should be found in series that reflect evolution. So should DNA.
4. Evolution predicts that fossils from different eras will never be found together - the example I was given was that you would “never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs”
Apparently there are all kinds of complex DNA predictions and evolutionary applications to bacteria and viruses but we’d need somebody who knows much, much more than I to have that discussion.