That's just not true. There are lots of things we can prove and disprove without being able to replicate them in a lab. Surely, even you wouldn't dismiss astronomy as hokum because we can't get a star into a bottle. In fact, evolution is tested on a daily basis. Scientists, for example, can use the theory of evolution to make predictions about where fossils will be found, in what layers of rock, and what they will look like. Scientists also use morphological data to make genetic predictions, and vice versa, again something you'd only expect to be able to do with the theory of evolution.
You're coming dangerously close to factual relativism -- because I can't prove a negative, because the Deity could always have forged the evidence used to support evolution -- you're trying to say that our explanations are equally correct. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and one that should trouble you.
...There are lots of things we can prove and disprove without being able to replicate them in a lab. Surely, even you wouldn't dismiss astronomy as hokum because we can't get a star into a bottle.
But we can observe the light, we can measure the wavelength characteristics, we can compare these light spectrum to light spectrum of known materials (which we have observed in the lab), and we have ways of measuring distances. So although we cannot 'shove the star in a bottle', we can make some fairly reasonable measurements and come up with data driven conclusions.
In fact, evolution is tested on a daily basis.
If we are talking about 'micro-evolution', i.e., natural selection, or within-Kind variations - I agree. If we're talking about the development of a new 'Kind' -- e.g., a culture of bacteria finally sprouting legs and walking away with its petri dish tucked under its arm; or one of those fruit-fly mutation experiments finally producing a butterfly -- I think not...
Scientists, for example, can use the theory of evolution to make predictions about where fossils will be found, in what layers of rock, and what they will look like.
And if a fossil ends up in the 'wrong place', the data is tossed out as a 'freak event' (no conspiracy - its just hard not to toss out the odd measurement/datapoint that disagrees with expectations...)...
Scientists also use morphological data to make genetic predictions, and vice versa, again something you'd only expect to be able to do with the theory of evolution.
Again, I believe we are talking about 'micro-evolution' - on which point we are in agreement.
You're coming dangerously close to factual relativism -- because I can't prove a negative, because the Deity could always have forged the evidence used to support evolution -- you're trying to say that our explanations are equally correct. That's a very dangerous road to go down, and one that should trouble you.
Maybe it would trouble me, but since I'm a non-evolved knuckle-dragger, you lost me on the 'factual relativism' comment...but let me attempt to respond anyways...
I wasn't trying to say that our explanations were equally correct (because of course I'm right, and you are wrong...) - but that we're spending a lot of time arguing about something that cannot be scientifically proved - And the outcome of said argument does not effect useful, usable, science.
The outcome of this argument is important - because the societal and theological implications are quite profound (e.g., man is a derivative of an animal; some 'races' of man are more evolved than others; God is either nonexistent, or a remote hands-off entity who may have done something with respect to Creation billions of years ago; etc) - but the frame of reference one takes with respect to Creation does not effect scientific work.
That is, whether or not I believe man was created in the not too distant past (as described in the Bible), or whether I believe man is the outcome of billions of years of chemicals transitioning to amino acids transitioning to proteins transitioning to life ..., does not effect how I run/design tests, experiments, etc., today...
Now granted, I would prefer a doctor working on me who thought I was made in the image of the divine Creator versus one who thought I was a deficiently evolved slab of proteins and bone ... but the first point on which I'd choose the doctor would be based on his credentials and skills, and not on his beliefs regarding Creation.