The essence of the scientific method is measurement, observation, repeatability. Falsifiability is the necessary criterion of genuine science. A hypothesis must--at least in principle--be testable and capable of being refuted, if it is truly scientific.
Neither model of macroevolution or creation with regards to origins is scientific in this sense. Neither one can be tested because we cannot repeat the history of origins.
Macroevolution (and creation) are both facts which are either true or not. We can test macroevolution using tests which are repeatable, that rely on observations and measurements. The hypothesis generated to explain those results (eg., by a process of mutations/natural selection these two species have diverged from a common ancestor) are falsifiable.
In this sense macroevolution isn't
science but it is scientific. In the same way 'X killed Y' is not
science, but certain ways of explaining whether X killed Y are scientific and other ways are not.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.