Fairly well decribes evolutionism, which not only lacks a theory, but refuses to recognize or acknowledge its starting assumptions.
Some of the mechanisms of evolution have been directly observed as has the variation of allele frequencies.
Changes on a small scale between and among specices have been observed and recorded over a considerable period of time. Pretty good science. Do you consider it good science to extrapolate therefrom the conclusion that all life forms are derivitive of a common ancestor?
Indirect observation is as valuable as direct observation.
You may equate the two in terms of certitude. I do not. Direct observation and repeatability are the best tools for understanding the physical universe. Indirect observation has its place, too, but every step removed from the present moment and direct observation places one further away from certitude.
Creation Science is not science . . .
Have you heard me say that it is? If so, please point out the location so I can correct myself.
"Changes on a small scale between and among specices have been observed and recorded over a considerable period of time. Pretty good science. Do you consider it good science to extrapolate therefrom the conclusion that all life forms are derivitive of a common ancestor? "
That is what science does, extrapolate. The tests of this, through genome comparisons, have born the conclusion out. And it is a conclusion, not an assumption.
"Creation Science is not science . . .
"Have you heard me say that it is? If so, please point out the location so I can correct myself.
I never said you did, I was answering the following statement from you.
"You want to call resonable conjecture over unobserved, unrecorded events "science?" Fine. Then shut your yap when creationism comes along and wants to do the same thing.
[emphasis mine]