[Fester Chugabrew]

My point is that your rejection of evolution is so profound that you invent criteria in order to exclude it from science.

It is evolutionism that I reject, not evolution. I reject it as science because it is profoundly lacking in the capacity to be directly observed, repeatable, and testable. I reject creationism as science for the same reason. Understand?

[b_sharp]

"It is evolutionism that I reject, not evolution. I reject it as science because it is profoundly lacking in the capacity to be directly observed, repeatable, and testable. I reject creationism as science for the same reason. Understand?

I guess not. What is the difference between evolutionism and evolution?