[GrandEagle]

To some extent I agree. You example of the light in the refrigerator is far less complex that evolution, but the point is well taken.
In this case, we form a hypotheses that the light really goes out when we close the door. Se push the button and observe that the light goes out. We observe the spot on the door edge and from what we already do know, we form an hypothesis that when we close the door the button gets pushed.
evolution tests things that we do know, for example the tests using a virus, bugs, different DNA tests, etc. The results of the tests, if not skewed by the scientists desired outcome, are scientific. What is in fact theory, is the end hypothesis that the various test show that life can evolve from (you insert the item). Since there are many, many more parameters involved, I don't think that the refrigerator example is very applicable.
I might also add, that in every test, the scientist does something to cause a result, which does show design. Something which most evolutionist deny - although not the topic of this thread I'll admit.
That different organisms mutate can be tested. That designing in some DNA changes cause the expected result from time to time can be tested and observed, that various animals adjust to their environment is observable. But that one kind of animal can become another kind of animal is a big jump from what has been tested, much less that life came from (whatever you insert the item).
The deductions that scientists conclude from things that are testable are just that - deductions. Very subject to interpretation of test results and the scientists own personal bias.

Cordially,
GE

[ToryHeartland]

To some extent I agree.

I suspect we agree about much; my point (not particularly well put) was that ToE is indeed empirical, though some seem to demand that ToE produce direct observation of results which in fact require hundreds of millions of years--which is a demand as unreasonable as demanding an empirical proof of God. Neither demand is appropriate, IMHO. It is clear that some folk find a conflict here; I happen to find none. But I do respect views from scientists and laymen alike that are (1) cogently argued and (2) civilly presented, as indeed yours are.