Keywords that characterize a scientific theory are observation and experimentation. Keywords that characterize the scientific method are testability and reproducibility. If it is not repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation it is not true science. Microevolution is the observable variety within a species and is therefore scientific. Macroevolution is the unobservable change from one unique life form into another unique life form and is therefore not scientific. Macroevolution is not observable, not testable and not reproducible. True scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Reality and causality show that specified complexity is only caused by intelligent agents. Against all logic the unprovable philosophy naturalism forces evolutionists to believe it is caused by mindless naturalistic processes.

Open-mindedness is receptiveness to new ideas. Intelligent design is an idea fanatically opposed by evolutionists simply because it supports supernaturalism which overpowers naturalism. According to objectivity in science scientists must aspire to eliminate personal biases, a priori commitments, emotional involvement, etc. According to good science scientists should never narrow their minds to unprovable philosophies like for example naturalism. But that's of course exactly what naturalists do and what they impose on the rest of the world via their powerful mainstream science organizations.

Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Scientists should not make up far-fetched theories that unnecessarily go beyond what is observable and true. The blind acceptance of the philosophy naturalism makes evolutionists go far beyond the limits of science when trying to explain origins. Examples are the big bang, abiogenesis, macroevolution, uniformitarianism, multiverse, evolutionary psychology, etcetera.

True scientists know the limits of science. Water consists of Hydrogen and Oxygen, Hydrogen consists of a proton and an electron, and an electron is an elementary particle. Elementary simply means we don't know of what it is made. Etcetera. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle shows that absolute knowledge is an illusion to mankind. Reality is much greater than science. True scientists honestly admit that science itself is based on faith because it is based on certain unprovable axioms or assumptions. Hence the philosophy of science. Because science is limited people are inevitably forced to resort to philosophy. This shows philosophy's superiority over science. Science can not even prove itself. Science is a product of the human mind but it can not explain the human mind itself. That which is created can never exceed or be equal to its creator. People can experience love and hate, but love and hate can't be proven by science. Science can somehow imply that the universe had a beginning but it can't explain what caused the so-called big bang to happen. Questions about origins belong to philosophy, not to science. Every answer in science leads to more questions or unknowns. Science may be a useful tool for explaining natural phenomena to some extent but the limits of science are real and should be respected. The supernatural can never be disproven by naturalism. The supernatural on the other hand can easily explain the natural.

Darwin observed microevolution and presented a theory of unobservable macroevolution based on speculations. The reality is that nobody ever witnessed a life form change into another, nor did anybody observe the appearance of new functional features not already present in the genetic makeup of an existing life form. This is common knowledge. Evolutionists go far beyond the limits of science in order to try to find evidence for their fanatic belief. Testing macroevolution in a laboratory is impossible. Therefore fanatic evolutionists invented untestable mathematical theories in an attempt to support their belief. See neo-Darwinism. The foundations of evolution theory are the philosophies naturalism and uniformitarianism and they are of course not scientific to begin with. Here's what a prominent evolutionist from the world of mainstream science says about science...

Evolutionists tend to scientism. Scientism is very narrow-minded and bad philosophy to say the least. Science can not even prove itself. So in order to believe that science will ultimately prove everything one has to be utterly stupid. Nonetheless today we have reached a point in time where popular mainstream scientists make statements like "philosophy is dead". Such scientists perhaps know much about their limited field of science, but they know as good as nothing about the overarching philosophy of science. The philosophy naturalism narrows the mind and the view of its practitioners to a point where they will even deny reality and true science in order to maintain their fanatic belief in it. The world of mainstream science is corrupted with this philosophy since at least the 19th century with the rise of naturalism and evolution theory.