Why Evolution is NOT Scientific

The Scientific Method is as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Observe
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that help in refining or discrediting hypothesis
   
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

If you cannot perform all the steps, yet you still come up with results, you are NOT practicing science. In evolution (a single celled organism being the common ancestor for all life), steps 2, 4-6, as well as 8, cannot be taken. Let me explain:

Step 1: define the question. How did such a wide variety of life forms come to be, here on Earth?
Step 2: observe...

Here is our first problem. How do we observe evolution, the transition of one kind of animal to another. The answer is we DON'T. Ignoring any biases I have regarding evolution, there is not a single example today I, or anyone else, can observe. Could it happen in the future (no), or have happened in the past (no, again)? Maybe (definitely not), but to perform the scientific method on it, it would have to be happening in the present, somewhere observable.

Step 3: form hypothesis. Well anyone can form a hypothesis, but to be part of the scientific method, it must be based on observation.
Step 4: perform experiment and collect data. There is no experiment to perform, or data to collect.
Step 5: analyze data. Once again, there is no data to analyze.
Step 6: interpret data and refine hypothesis to fit with data. There is no data to interpret, therefore no way to use data to refine hypothesis.
Step 7: publish results. Can't publish results, because I didn't find anything.
Step 8: retest. Can't retest, because there wasn't a test to begin with.

As you can see, evolutionists do NOT follow the scientific method. Instead of performing step 2: observation, they use fossils of dead organisms, and try to create a "tree of life" to explain their hypothesis. Again, these are DEAD organisms, they are NOT evolving, therefore, they cannot be used to support evolution.

Basically, the method used to support evolution is as follows.
Step 1: come up with an idea of how all living things are descendants of a common ancestor.
Step 2: find fossils that fit into your idea, while ignoring fossils that don't.
Step 3: Publish your idea as a hypothesis (even though it can't be considered a hypothesis).
Step 4: Have other evolutionists take fossils that you couldn't fit into your "tree of life" and attempt to create a new "tree of life" that they will fit into.

In conclusion, evolution is NOT science. To be fair, creationism isn't science either. Creationists can't use the scientific method to show that God created everything, but they can use the scientific method to support creation, just like evolutionists can use the scientific method to try to support evolution. However, science cannot be used to explain the origin of life, or the origin of the Universe. To do so, would require the ability to observe creation in the first place and the ability recreate creation in a controlled environment. And we all know that is not possible.

P.S. I realize that I didn't talk about Darwin's finches or other similar observations. However, those are not observations of evolution in action, they are observations of variation within a created kind. They are still finches and they can still reproduce with other finches. After the drought ended in the Galapagos Islands, the finch beaks went back to how they were pre-drought. It is nothing more than natural selection, which unlike evolution, IS scientific.