This pretty well covers what I think about the subject:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm

What you are saying is that historical sciences are not sciences either. But last time I checked, palaeontology and forensic science were still considered science. This is why I believe your definition of what is and isn't science to be too limited.

But beyond the semantics:
Regardless of whether you believe it is 'scientific': is it real? Do organisms evolve? Did organisms evolve through history?

They're the real questions, not which category you decide to put the theory in, and we use science to answer them.

Bugsy,

The History of Science society would oint to The Great Divergence as a time when Humankind learned how to learn. Science requires hypotheses and testing which Popper would add should be tested {confirmed or refted] and tentatively held until something better comes along.An Ancient Chinese alchemist discovering gunpowder is merely happnestance. Mendel or a horse breeder forecasting outcomes is much closer to science.

Evolution complements and organisms adaptiveness to its ecology. The organism overcomes obstacles and fails to reproduce adapive genes or it does not. What is superior or inferior is relative. Einstein once said he did know if there would be WW III but he was certain ther would be no WW IV. Yet Mutual Assured Distrution [to humans]would be little concern cockroachs.

I was little suprised by Popper's quote. His main thread of thought took the path of confirmation and refutation of theory. Here much of Marxism, Psychoanltic theory and Religion seem to seek self confirmation, rather than refutation or null hypotheses. I think in the 21st centuty, fifty years after Popper reached his peak, genentics has reached the status of a science. Moreover, new biotechnolgies are sure to evolve [pun altert] for this reason.

Bugsy:

That damn post limiter is giving me the sh1ts again. This will probably be my last post today. Part 1 of two:

Exactly, history and science employ different tools and methods, with the field of study (as it is generally unsderstood) largely dicatating the tools employable. Obviously you *could* define science in a way that includes history and maths, but to do so would destroy any meaning for the word. Some argue this should be done because it stems from the latin word for knowledge, but if you want to refer to all branches of knowledge you should use the more appropriate term and not pretend that definitions have not change in two millenia.

To a large extent, forensic science is merely applying knowledge that science has provided. The only difference between forensic science and good old fashioned detective work is the age of the knowledge employed. That is a rather arbitrary distinction to make. It comes down to lay people's 'gut feeling' for what science is (in the absence of any deeper understanding of the term) misleading them in certain contexts. That being said, people who work in the field no doubt ask some genuine scientific questions, develop some genuine scientific hypotheses and run some genuine experiments.

Remember, science is a methodology, not a field of study. This is not just about semantics. Awareness of the scientific method is of great practical value to people. It is even a useful tool for debugging computer code or maintaining vehicles. To judge the definition based on whether it includes or excludes entire fields of study indicates a complete misunderstanding of the definition. The extent to which a field of study is scientific depends on the extent to which practitioners employ the scientific method. It is the methods and the 'theories' which are distinct, not the fields of study.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

Part 2 of 2:

You are making a reasonable attempt to criticise the definition of science which I have put forward. However, without providing an alternative definition your efforts will inevitably be in vain. I suspect this discussion would be far more enlightening if you tried to provide an alternative definition, as it is the flaws in alternative definitions that will make you appreciate the simplicity, elegance and practical value of the definition I gave. You will soon find that it is far easier to accept that natural history is natural history rather than science than to try to reconcile a definition of science inclusive of natural history with what you otherwise regard as scientific and unscientific.

Freediver,
Science is a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.
Science also refers to the organised body of knowledge people have gained using that system.
I have no problems with the scientific method which generally has the following steps:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

The main point of contention you have with evolution though, seems to be what constitutes an 'experiment'. I think you should check out wikipedia, as it has an explanation of many different types of experiments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment

I know you have quoted wikipedia on what constitutes an experiment on your little blog, but you failed to include the rest of the article didn't you? Why?

'Historical' and other sciences (including sciences like medical science and ecology) often employ 'natural experiments' or 'quasi experiments' to observe phenomena that are predicted by the hypothesis- the hypothesis is either invalidated and updated or supported. This happens in evolutionary studies all the time.
Also I think you may be confused as to what constitutes a "conclusion". It isn't just a yes/no answer as to whether a hypothesis is wrong or not. A conclusion must necessarily update the hypothesis and propose a new one depending on the data.

Your assertion that "evolution" isn't falsifiable is absurd, nearly all (I say nearly as I am not aware of 100% of all the theories and cannot be absolute) parts of the theory (and there are many!) are testable (within logistical constraints) and falsifiable.

Also, I think you are getting your definitions in a twist: Natural History is definitely science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_history

To argue otherwise is.......ah I won't say it.

I think we have to accept that the process of evolution is real ,but we do not know how environmental influences affects or even initiates genetic change.There may be an interaction we don't know about.I think that it is more than just random selection via genetic accidents.Modern man has evolved in just 2 million yrs.Accidents don't happen that quickly.

This is the area the religious folk should be exploring rather than illogical rants about creationism.