You have "proven" nothing. Evolution has been observed and documented, multiple times. I am sorry if you couldn't demonstrate using 4th grade science fair experiment logic. If you raise the bar to 7th grade I can show you some that work.
let me repost my original statement to jog our memories regarding this:
Even evolutionary Biology which is a hard science, is actually not science when you think about it this way:
- until it is observed (evolution between genus), it cannot be hypothesized about,
- until it has a hypothesis,
- it can't be tested
- until it is tested it cannot be a scientific theory,
“A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.”
States a miami college of arts and sciences:
The Scientific Method
again:
If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it.- Batesville Community School
Hypotheses
basically if a hypothesis is not testable through observations, then it cannot be considered a hypothesis as it breaks the first rules: testability.
So if Chemical and Macro Evolution lacks observation then it lacks the ability to be tested. If it lacks ability to be tested, then it cannot be a hypothesis and resultantly cannot be a theory scientifically speaking. If it is not either a hypothesis nor a theory, then it’s not science.
“empirical science deals only with observable, repeatable, and regular events in the present. These events have only natural causes. Into this sphere no supernatural or intelligent causes are permitted. Empirical science is king of this domain. But neither macro-evolutionary speculation about unobserved and unrepeated events of origin nor creation is part of empirical science.”- Norman Geisler in His book Creation and the courts.
“However, unless it is an observable, regular, and repeatable event, they have no right to consider it an object of empirical science. And if it is an unobserved, unrepeated event of the past, then it does not qualify as empirical science. In that case, it must be treated as forensic science—for which both macroevolution and creation qualify.”
“1999 Nature magazine published a letter from Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who said, “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”22- Scott Todd, letter to the editor, Nature 401/6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.”- Geisler, Ibid.
No origin science, either chemical evolution or ID can be repeated, or observed currently. Therefore it’s not science. The next question is, should it be legal to teach ID in public school? Yes. I don’t recommend it due to lack of updated textbooks and lack of training for instructors. But I think it should be legal. Just as legal as Evolutionary Biology, or Origin science (chemical evolution) is legal to teach. We can’t simply toss them out of public school because they are not observed, forensic science is not currently observed but it is still a science being taught. So too ID should be included as one that is legal to teach to any school student. Again, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that we (ID’ers) are ready to publiclly teach it.
One major reason why legally ID hasn't faired as well in the courts:
"Another ambiguity in favor of macroevolution is the failure to clearly distinguish between microevolution, which is an empirical science, and macroevolution, which is being taught as if it too were an empirical science when it is not (see chapter 8). This equivocation has enabled evolution to survive the court tests of legitimacy while creation has not fared so well."
Geisler, N. (n.d.). Creation and the Courts: Eighty Years of Conflict in the Classroom and the Courtroom.
