Evolution IS testable according to the scientific community. Astronomers can't test stars in a lab, and geologists cannot go back in time, yet somehow you do not question the validity of those fields! Being testable does not mean it has to be recreated in a lab, that's an assumption people who do not know science make.
If you would like me to post what the major scientific institutions say about evolution, just ask. Otherwise I will assume off the mark that you agree that denying evolution means opposing what all major scientific institutions support. Which means your opposition is based on religious grounds.
"Astronomers can't test stars in a lab"
Wrong. The conditions extant in stars have been created in labs many times in recent years. CERN has made many experiments successfully simulating stellar environments. So has Stanford. So has Los Alamos.
You don't need to have the whole star in the lab to extrapolate results, do you?
If so then you won't mind my rubbing your nose in the fact that evolution is extrapolated from a minute sample of representative individuals, not entire species or family/genetic lines.
This is fun! (:
Macro-Evolution is no more testable than Creation. Astronomers collect observations and come up with hypotheses about what could cause their observations. You don't see every Astronomer coming up with "theories" everyday.
In the scientific method there are fairly strict definitions of the words hypothesis, theory and law. Einstein's "Theory of Relativity" makes predictions that can be tested in the lab and has been.
I did not intend for my comment to support either creationism or evolution. I just meant that it would be incredibly difficult to create an experiment that can be performed in a laboratory to test (macro-)evolution. By definition there is no way to create an experiment to test Creation.
That so many evolutionists have reacted so emotionally to my post says something....