[Agamemnon]

"Evolution" is a premise, from which springs a world view. It is not a theory in a scientific sense.

Nice to see you have chosen to study physical theories.

I'm a biochemist by academic accomplishment and by profession (28 years).

I study quantum theory, the general theory of relativity, and electromagetic theory. These ideas are not lacking in evidence, rather, they are so precise that the modern world would not function without them.

You missed the fact that in order for a premise to rise to the level of "theory," it must be testable. All the examples you listed above are testable.

The "Theory" of Evolution in the Darwinian sense is simply not testable.

FReegards!

[camerakid400]

Sure its testable.

Take a group of organisms from one environment to another and see what happens to them over time.

Scientists have already done this. If I recall correctly, they moved a bunch of lizards from one island to another 40 years ago. After just a few decades, the same lizards had bigger heads and new intestinal structures.

[tacticalogic]

The "Theory" of Evolution in the Darwinian sense is simply not testable.

I don't see that the testability of it changes the question at hand. Creationism is certainly no more "testable" than evolution.