"Freediver,I'm just trying to view the world from your religious perspective."

Oh, what 'religious perspective' would that be?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

"Do you believe evolution is fact?"

No, it is a theory. It inspires some degree of faith in some people, but not me. My interest is more academic.

"Do you think it is not scientific because of a flawed definition of what is scientific?"

The definition is not flawed, but yes that is the reason.

"What about observations?"

Yes, those too: http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/science-methodology.html

"As a scientist in the field of botany, ecology, geomorphology and geology, observations count for just about everything!"

Yes, those fields do not have a lot of theories, but there's no harm in trying. There are some very interesting theories coming out, which will need further observations. Biology has a tendency to rely on the 'natural experiment' which I guess is acceptable if that's all you have to go with, provided you acknowledge the limitations.

"In the plant world, I can see evolution in action staring me in the face all the time."

Please note the difference I pointed out between evolution and antural selection. The terminology is very important for this debate.

Freediver,
After looking at that website, I can't help but think that it throws a spot light on the short-comings of so many of the "Science" degrees available in this country. We now have Environmental Science, Forensic Science, Sports Science and Food Science. What's next Home and Garden Science? Seems that anything can be called a Science when all it really is just a prolonged examination of government policy documentation (at best). And the worthwhile disciplines like Chemistry, Physics and Maths are a pale imitation of what used to be on offer.

Some of them are 'applied science' ie applying the technology or knowledge that science has given us, but which is still new enough for the public to regard as science. Some of it isn't really science at all. However, you can apply the scientific method to varying degrees to many fields of study. Even auto mechanics employ it sometimes. The term science gets thrown around very loosely these days, and that can take away a lot of it's meaning.

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

As for the predictive nature of evolutionary theory, probably the first was the suggestion that the Earth was actually much older than initially thought. For all the species on Earth to have evolved would have taken thousands or millions of years. This was not a new idea but it was before argon-argon dating was available and before astrophysics could suggest such a notion.

Other predictions include the idea that ecosystems are not static as previously thought but continually shifting in stucture and function. There have also been predictions regarding the origins and development of disease.

If there is one thing wrong with the theory of evolution it is that it is pretty cumbersome and can probably be broken into a number of different theories.
I also take exception to people asking whether I "believe" in a theory. I can accept a theory and use a theory to explain phenomena, but to believe suggests that I need to have faith in it. This is a silly notion, to have faith in an body of documented ideas.

I have just joined the forum and now when I go to post I find a limit of 350 words. I just did a word count-- about 1503, so I'll have to go thru it and do a severe precis. Should have told me up front!

You shouldn't have posted that - there is a limit on the number of posts too lol.

Go here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

There is a link at the bottom to a forum without those limits. Don't let your stuff go to waste.