Evolution is not science

First time that I hear that. I hope you then also vehemently reject star formation theories, all types of meteorology, plate tectonics, the theory that smoking causes cancer, etc. etc. etc. Why so selective?

But if you're consistent, you SHOULD reject all those things?

So the conclusion is you indeed reject them because, just like (macro)evolution, you argue they can not be tested in the lab.Did you ever take the time to systematically evaluate all scientific knowledge, to be sure that you only accepted science entirely based on laboratory experiments? Or is there maybe another reason why you single out evolutionary theory?

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I will admit that experience with the 'typical' new poster asking/asserting stuff like this has conditioned some of us into a certain type of reaction. Still, the questions are in the first place supposed to be helpful, as to make you think a bit further about your own question. When I would ask myself the same question about evolution being science or not, I would first of all find it very odd that a field of investigation that has been around for almost 200 years now, and has gone through the hands of some of the brightest people ever known, could still turn out to be "not legitimate science after all". Even if I would have this hunch that there is something wrong, I would certainly argue from a position that I was probably missing something. To me, the way you phrased your first post indicated that you dismissed this all too easily. It sounded more like a statement than an inquiry. Your tone has definitely changed somewhat since then, though.