Geetings allmendream.... I’m looking at your post #68 here.
I want to make sure I understand what you are saying.... are you saying that “creation science” has a priori assumptions and that “secular science” doesn’t?
Are you further saying that the scientific method (observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable) has anything whatsoever to do with the theory of evolution?
If you are, I respectfully ask you to back that up.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is a scientific theory in that it explains and predicts data. Science is useful in that it provides replicable information about the natural world through attributing natural causes to natural phenomena. All scientific progress in terms of knowledge and technology has been dependent upon exactly that, using natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it is absolutely useless, and provides nothing in the way of replicable information about the natural world. Attributing supernatural causes to natural phenomena is an intellectual dead end that leads to no further information.
Evolution through natural selection of genetic variation is....
Observable: DNA cannot be replicated with 100% fidelity, thus change in the DNA of a population is inevitable. Those variations that provide a survival advantage will mathematically predominate in subsequent generations. We see this in thousands of experiments.
Testable: If I plate a single bacterial colony derived from one individual on ten plates, and subject them to ten different stresses, changes in DNA in each population will result in greater survivability to the subjected stress.
Repeatable: Try the above again and you see the same results - heat stress leads to evolution of heat resistance - cold stress leads to evolution of cold resistance - antibiotic stress leads to evolution of antibiotic resistance. Every time a novel antibiotic is put out in the environment resistance to that antibiotic develops among subjected bacterial populations. Repeatably.
Falsifiable: If we discovered an organism that could stay exactly 100% the same in DNA, or you could show that variations in DNA had no impact on survivability and fecundity, or you could show that DNA that decreased survivability and fecundity was just as likely to predominate in subsequent generations as a DNA variation that increased survivability and fecundity - then the theory would be falsified.