If it were a theory, it should be debatable and testable.
Cellular evolution is demonstrable by simple high school experiments. Intraspecies variation from environmental pressure (the finches) is likewise trivial to demonstrate.
Interspecies mutational change driven by environment, OTOH, lacks both a biologically plausible mechanism AND physical evidence that it has ever happened.
This, of course, does not falsify it. But it DOES make its enthronement as dogma unscientific.
Mathematically, you can see he was essentially claiming without proof a "calculus" of biology, where as in calculus you add up infinitesimally small increments to achieve a total, as in geometry.
But where Darwin went wrong was in glossing over the fact that he never even thought about the stability of the alleged intermediate forms between species. If a member of a species has some genetic mutation to take it far enough away from the complex interplay of chemical, structural, and all other factors which make it a viable species in the first place, it becomes LESS stable regarding further survival. But the entire edifice of Darwinism assumes without proof that, no you're wrong, genetic mutations are MORE stable.
Examination of all available scientific evidence indicates which belief system is more provably true.
I regret to inform you that calling it names does not make the mountains of evidence for it go away.
If it were a theory, it should be debatable and testable.
It is a theory, it is debatable (and has been, endlessly), and it is testable. Unfortunately for the anti-evolutionists, it has passed countless tests with flying colors.
Where on Earth did you get the mistaken impression that it's not? Hint: You really ought to try reading more than just the creationist "literature".
Cellular evolution is demonstrable by simple high school experiments. Intraspecies variation from environmental pressure (the finches) is likewise trivial to demonstrate.
Fine so far.
Interspecies mutational change driven by environment, OTOH, lacks both a biologically plausible mechanism AND physical evidence that it has ever happened.
Oh dear, you've been reading the creationists instead of the science journals, I see.
There most certainly are "biologically plausible" mechanisms, *and* massive amounts of physical evidence that it has indeed happened. What have you been smoking?
This, of course, does not falsify it. But it DOES make its enthronement as dogma unscientific.
Well, since all of your premises are wrong, so is your conclusion. Care to try again?