Is this truly your comprehension of how the scientific method works? You were taught in school that someone comes up with a hypotheses - "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. . . . a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth." and then 'before you know it' that idea is SOMEHOW turned into a scientific fact.
It is my experience when researching this topic that the "evidence" presented to support any hypothesis is largely a matter of interpretation. Who in the scientific community is going to interpret evidence that doesn't accord with their peers' expectations? We all know what happens to anyone who might present something that does not accord with that expectation...its career suicide.
Didn't anyone ever explain to you that the SOMEHOW is that whoever made the hypothesis must then find a way of testing the hypothesis in a way so that it can duplicated by others? And that ONLY after a hypothesis has been thoroughly tested and the results of those tests reliably indicate that the hypothesis is true does anyone consider it to be anything close to a scientific fact.
This is a joke isn't it? Let me just run science's first premise before you......a microscopic, single celled organism, that just "happened" to pop into existence for no apparent reason, came fully equipped to transform itself, over millions of years, into something the size of a three story building....and the "evidence for that is....? And this is testable by what means? Seriously?
Its the first premise that has all the flaws.....everything is built on that first premise, which can't be proven under any circumstances. IOW, you have a monumental edifice of supposition and guesswork that is supported by matchticks......invisible ones.
The only things that are being tossed onto the scrap heap are untestable hypothesis or hypotheses that have been tested and the results of the tests indicate that they are not true.
That in itself is sooo not true. Nothing in science's first premise is testable. No one knows where that original life came from....except the one who created it; the greatest scientist in existence....and you don't believe him.
So 'science' isn't being tossed into the scrap heap. It's the scientific method that enables us to determine which hypothesis should or should not be tossed into said scrap heap.
I call the "scientific method" in many cases, nothing more than smoke and mirrors....educated guesswork. Not enough for me to stake my life on. You can if you like.
What science can prove by experimentation, is "adaptation", which is an inherent mechanism in all lifeforms, large and small...the ability to create minor changes in its physical appearance or function to facilitate a change in environment or food source. In no experiment did the creature mutate into something else. The flies stayed flies, the fish stayed fish and the finches didn't just stay birds, they stayed finches....just new varieties of the same family. No one knows how this happened.....no one was there to observe any of it except the Creator and he had it recorded....just not in scientific terms....it would have been wasted on an scientifically uneducated community. You don't have to believe in him, but I do for many valid reasons. How many fortunate flukes can you have before you run out of statistics?
Heck, man didn't even know about the spread of disease by microorganisms until the invention of the microscope....and even at the turn of last century simple hand washing between patients could have stopped the spread of many infectious diseases. Yet quarantine procedures and washing of hands and contaminated articles was written in Israel's laws thousands of years ago. They never knew why, but we do.
What did Darwin observe on the Galapagos Islands. He saw different varieties of the same creatures that he knew existed on the mainland. The iguanas were still iguanas, adapted to a marine existence and the tortoises were still tortoises, but again, a species adapted to island life.
Science took what Darwin observed and ran away it, turning speculation and wild assumptions into scientific facts when there weren't any. Not all science is wrong, but when it is wrong, it is ridiculous! How many frauds have presented "evidence" for evolution only to have it exposed as fake? If it was truth, there would be no need to fake it. All the evidence would be there, including the phantom intermediary species that are somehow always missing.
You can believe it if you wish...I'll pass.