Well there is a big difference between a rock (an inanimate object) rolling down a hill a few days ago and the assertion that sexual reproduction began 1200 billion years ago, isn’t there?
I have two degrees: a BSEE and an AAS in chemical technology. I make my living based on science. Evolution is not science, because it cannot be verified in a laboratory. I have not problem with physics, calculus, chemistry, mathematics, and so forth. That is true science, and only someone with mental problems would argue that 1+1 does not equal two. So there is science and there is lack of science. Evolution falls into the latter.
What is the difference, scientifically speaking?
Evolution is not science, because it cannot be verified in a laboratory
Boy, you're throwing an awful lot of science out with that bathwater. I guess any theories of star formation aren't science, or of gravity, or continental drift, or any of that--not only are they wrong, they're not even science, is that it? You understand that such a claim makes it hard to take you seriously, right?
I make my living based on science.
Does your job involve figuring out why something happens? Or do you just manipulate well-understood processes?