Of course evolution is science: it is at worst a scientific hypothesis and at best a confirmed theory.
Regardless, it is still science.
Your continued efforts to deny that simple fact say nothing about evolution itself, but speak volumes about the dishonesty ruling your own heart, FRiend.
imardmd1: "As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science."
The evolutionary hypothesis, as proposed by Darwin 150+ years ago has been confirmed -- making it a theory -- too many times to count.
Your repeated DeNiles simply expose your own ignorance and/or dishonesty.
imardmd1: "In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology.
By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught."
I coined nothing.
Mummification is a process of drying-out for long-term preservation of organic material.
That such processes can rarely occur in nature is likely demonstrated by that T-Rex bone material.
imardmd1: "It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced."
Not true.
Basic evolution theory consists of two often-confirmed facts:
Species can be seen modifying and being selected every day, there's no dispute about that, even amongst anti-evolutionists.
But the word "speciation" is a scientific construct, whose criteria are defined by science itself, not by you, and whose definition boils down to: changes significant enough to be classified as a separate breed, sub-species, species, genus, family, etc.
These changes are seen every day, and exact classifications are matters of often lengthy debates.
To pick just one example: Polar Bears were classified as a separate genus, but recently "downgraded" to just another species within the Ursus genus because, among other reasons, it was discovered they can and occasionally do interbreed with Brown Bears.
So degrees of "speciation" are matters of scientific definitions, and as such are seen and debated every day.
imardmd1: "To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought."
Of course, evolution theory is not the only explanation, it is simply the only confirmed scientific theory.
Over many years, other scientific hypotheses were proposed, but none confirmed, leaving evolution as the only accepted theory we have.
imardmd1: "Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO."
With all due respect, you in no way, shape or form speak for science, only for your own religious convictions.
As such, factually your approach falls short of scientific acceptance, FRiend.
How do you know, as an incontrovertible, proven fact, that God didn’t create the universe?
You might at least do yourself the favor of freely downloading the Martin book mentioned in the opening passage, read it carefully to see your theses at least blunted, then come back with your objections to that.
Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time recapitulating the claims you have made in your Post 164, which have all been refuted by others. (At least, please account for Stephen Jay Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the failure of the "geological column" to support Darwinian gradualism, and the Mt. St. Helen's sedimentary depositions that bring the whole presuppositions of history of geology, as taught, into disrepute.)
When I speak of science, I speak as one who has successfully employed the tools and methods of science for both commercial and theoretical efforts. When I speak on origins, I speak as a philosopher, as happenings not now nor ever provable by scientific methodology, for they are not repeatable (and neither you nor I were there, observing). Please be kind not to confuse these areas of endeavor, as you have been doing, eh?
I cannot respect a blending of evolutionism and science practice. They are not the same.