You definition is correct, but you got one little detail off. Observation is done on evidence. Scientists don't group around the table and make theories and then look for evidence, No. That is actually complete reversal of scientific approach. In scientific method, when we come across an issue, we look at the evidence, and then we formulate a theory. Not the other way around. If you have evidence, you can claim a theory. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are just making up theories with no basis of evidence. Science is based on evidence, not thousand year old anonymous scripture. Even creationists admit they start from the bible. Unlike creationism, evolution is an accepted scientific fact proven through vast amounts of evidence ranging from molecular genetics to fossil record. Evolution is unanimously accepted by all the disciplines of science all over the world. Scientists are certain about evolution, to the same degree historians are certain about the existence of Napoleon. It is a fact, and it is not going to change. All creationism has to back itself up, is just the scripture that has no legitimacy, let alone an authorship. Testimonies are not evidence. If testimonies are evidence, then harry potter must really exist because his book says he exist. Which is ridiculous even to think like that. Medical journals and other scientific paper are 'secondary' research material, not primary. Scientists don't believe in newtonian physics solely on the physics text book, they believe it because it works on real life. There is evidence for it on the real world. Chemists don't believe potassium permanganate is purple because the chemistry book says it is purple, no. They believe it is purple because they have seen the evidence, that it is purple. It is simple science really.
And proving evolution wrong, doesn't mean it automatically proves creationism as the truth. No. The science doesn't work that way. Science doesn't encourage that kind of thinking. To prove creationism correct, you must have evidence, and not just one evidence. And testimonies are considered 'secondary' research material which is not evidence. Anyone could refer the Bible or the Quran, and point out it says god created the man, but where is the evidence for that? Are we gonna believe what a book says us to believe? Or should we look at the world around us and decide what should we believe through evidence instead?
kaminochoro forfeited this round.