It's very simple: As an historical "science," it calls for things that are not directly testable. It calls for things that not only have never been directly observed, but which cannot be directly observed in principle.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
And even if you are still misspeaking after all these years and calling speciation “evolution” - that too has been observed and is absolutely testable and predictable.
One need not see a star form from beginning to end to utilize the theory that stars form through gravity and nuclear fusion and make testable predictions based upon it.
One need not see the Grand Canyon form to know that erosion is both necessary and sufficient to explain its formation and make testable predictions based upon it.
One need not see the Himalayas rise up into mountains to know and understand the forces causing it and make testable predictions based upon it.
And it IS different than the offering of a religion in that it is testable, useful, and explanatory and based upon known physical means rather than miraculous presupposition that is absolutely USELESS.
As is the case with most historical sciences. Do you have the same problem with all of them? Do you have an issue with the idea that South America and Africa were once joined, or that the Himalayas are the result of India crashing into Asia? We've measured the movement of continental plates (I suppose you could call that microtectonics) but never observed the creation of a continent (macrotectonics) (and speaking as someone living in California, I hope we never do).
How about the formation of the moon? We're not going to see that again either, God willing. Do you complain when people talk about the moon being formed from part of the Earth that got knocked off 4+ billion years ago?
If you're consistently refuse to believe in things we can't directly test or observe, that's one thing. But if you're singling out evolution with a criticism that can apply to a lot of other theories--well, I just want to point out the inconsistency.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
And here, I think you're rigging the game. Can you define where microevolution becomes macroevolution? I don't think you can--I think you just "know it when you see it." I mentioned a while back a population of lizards that developed larger heads and a whole new gut structure to accommodate a changed diet in a new environment, and asked if that was macro enough. I expect--maybe I'm wrong--that you'll say "they're still lizards." Well, yes, and you'll be able to say that no matter how much they change because you know they started as lizards--that's what I mean by rigging the game. (You know they're not going to turn into cats or birds, right?) Each new generation will look like and be able to interbreed with their parents, so you'll be able to say "they're still lizards" even if they end up feathered and flying.
You also know tigers and lions can reproduce, right? What's your explanation for that--are they really just microevolutionary variations of the same animal? What animal is that?
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
In the sense that both deal with things most people haven't seen, yes. But that's a trivial sense. In more meaningful senses, such as whether you can make predictions based on it (as allmendream keeps pointing out), they are nothing alike.
I believe we've had this discussion before. It simply is not accurate to call sciences that depend mostly on observation "historical" sciences. Furthermore, the science of evolution has many components that *are* directly testable, and many evolutionary biologists spend their careers designing and performing hypothesis-driven experiments.
As for any supposition that evolution "calls for" unobserved and unobservable things, that simply is not true. You have previously expressed frustration that scientists only care about that which is tangible, observable, measurable--but here you are now, accusing us of incorporating nonexistent components into the theory of evolution! Your previous characterization of us as being too focused on the physical world is essentially correct--please keep that in mind the next time you are tempted to accuse us (or to repeat someone else's accusation) of engaging in philosophical flights of fancy vis-à-vis evolution.
Also, if you want to talk about the supposed "unobserved and unobservable" aspects of the theory of evolution, please be specific about what they are.
[Of course, I am here speaking of the macroevolution component of the doctrine.]
What, exactly, is "macroevolution"? I'm familiar with the term as coined by literal creationists, but I don't think it has a definite scientific meaning. I suppose the distinction would be the time scale...
In that very sense, it is no different than the offerings of any religious sect.
Religion concerns itself with the unseeable and unprovable; it is very different from science. Each has its place, and scientists never confuse the two.