You seem to be well versed in the weak science of astrology. Maybe you can explain the difference between "reasonable conjecture" and "theories that attempt to explain existing evidence." Neither constitute direct observation of current phenomena and testability in real time, which is part and parcel of science in the strict sense. If you think the essence of science is merely explaining the existing evidence (as revealed in geologic records and such), then it is no wonder you are willing to grant the philosophy of evolution "scientific" status in the classroom.
OK, here goes. A reasonable conjecture is one that suggests further research to find confirming or contracicting evidence. Any conjecture that does not have within it the suggestion of possible disconfirming evidence is not part of science.
Theories are, in general, conjectures that are rich in detail and which have withstood many years of inquiry.
Regarding astrology, to the extent that it attempts to make predictions, the predictions are wrong. For the most part, what passes for astrology in newspaper colums is just randomly sorted platitudes that apply equally to everyone.
Conjecture
-n.1. the formation or expression of an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof. 2. an opinion so formed. 3. Obs. the interpretation of signs or omens (although your astrology analogy is precisely this obsolete definition) 4. to conclude or suppose from grounds insufficient to ensure reliability.
In other words, an opinion that has no basis upon any evidence. In other words a "reasonable conjecture" is a contradiction in terms. There is no "reason" in a conjecture.
Contrast this with your second statement quoted above. They are contrapositives to each other.
If you think the essence of science is merely explaining the existing evidence (as revealed in geologic records and such), then it is no wonder you are willing to grant the philosophy of evolution "scientific" status in the classroom.
I didn't say any such thing about the "essence of science" and you don't have the slightest idea what I think so don't try your 'clarivoient act' with me. People who resort to putting words in other peoples mouth, or thoughts in their heads, do so because they don't have any rational arguments of their own to make.
Oh, so evolution is a "philosophy" now. Science has many aspects and is not limited to what you would call it in the "strict" sense.
No one has observed gold and other hard metals being created in a supernova and it is not repeatable or testable but it is the accepted process by which they came to exist by the scientific community.
You just like to play word games.