Restating an idea in different terms does not make the restatement a false statement.
In my view, so-called "theories" in the historical sciences - e.g. evolution biology, archeology, anthropology, Egyptology - are more akin to paradigms. Or if you prefer a blueprint into which new evidence is fit.
But unlike the hard sciences (e.g. physics) where falsification of the theory causes the theory to be discarded - if the evidence will not fit the historical science paradigm, then it is explained away with a "just-so" amendment to the story.
Again, you are making a false dichotomy between supposed "historical" sciences (e.g. biology) and "hard" sciences (e.g. physics).
I'm not even going to try to imagine how you think biologists do their work, but doesn't it raise the slightest bit of doubt in your mind that, in 170+ years, no one has falsified the ToE? Do you really think no one has tested the theory? Since the GIGO paradigm (garbage in, garbage out) applies to biology and every other science as much as it applies to computer programming, doesn't the fact that the last 170 years have seen great medical and biological advances make you hesitate even the slightest in dismissing out-of-hand the unifying theory of biology that allowed for those advances?
Not that I expect any literal creationist to actually want to learn anything about genuine science, but if you are going to claim that we life scientists do not test our theories, you have to provide evidence. Cherry-picked quotes from literal creationist websites don't count. One place to start looking for that evidence would be www.pubmed.org. Other places would be the various scientific societies: AAAS, ASM, ACS, etc.
I fully understand why literal creationists invest so much effort into criticizing science and the scientific method. Unfortunately, no matter how much you criticize scientists for not doing so, they cannot provide evidence that Genesis is a literal account. I suggest that if you feel your faith troubled by the lack of concrete evidence, you need to meditate and learn to accept it.
The sources I offer are carefully chosen, authoritative and mainstream - though you did not recognize at least one of them, i.e. Popper.
And I have not even been as dismissive of historical sciences as one of your own:
Henry Gee
Senior Editor, Biology, London
Education: BSc, University of Leeds; PhD, University of Cambridge.
Areas of responsibility include: integrative and comparative biology (including palaeontology, evolutionary developmental biology, taxonomy and systematics), archaeology and biomechanics.
From his book “In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life” (emphasis mine)
“For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency, not on a scientific test, but on assertion and authority of their presentation.”
I'm certain because within the historical sciences the absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence whereas in the experimental sciences (especially the hard ones like physics) the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Interestingly, in the conclusion of her article, she observes:
Alternative explanations are not seriously entertained.
So, ironically, in attempting to defend the historical sciences the author has revealed the poison pill of evolution theory.