I thought I will derail this thread and thus I create a new one. This exchange, especially the bold lines from that thread, give me a pause to think “what makes a theory to be scientific?”. Here is the exchange at post 14
My understanding of theory to be designated as “Scientific” came from this Feynman's video.
From the video, Scientific Method is defined by Feynman as
Gusess--->Computational Experiment--->Compare Experimental Result (with ComputationalExperiment)
If the experimental result does not match the Computational Experiment, then the theory is incorrect and importantly, not scientific.
In the case of Evolution (Macro), we have a guess or hypothesis and the evidences(vast but incomplete) but no demonstrable experiment or an unique explanation of its mechanism so far (Correct me if I am wrong. My Knowledge is very limited about Evolution). Like Psychology, as I see it, Evolution (Macro) is a theory with description but without explanation. Then can we still designate Evolution (Macro) as "Scientific" and if so, how and why?