Is Evolution science?

IT is of my own opinion that evolution is not science because it can not be experimented with.What do you think?

I assume that by evolution you refer to Natural History/Common Ancestry rather than 'genetic change through time'But could you clarify what you mean when you say 'evolution' in case I am wrong, why science must be experimentally based and why 'evolution' cannot be experimented with. I recommend you read the dissenting views and account for them: Observational Science and Historical Science which are often contrasted with experimental science. Then perhaps I'll consider promoting it for debate. Thanks.Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given.

i'm talking about the evolution its self.

Repeating that you mean 'evolution' when you mean 'evolution' is not much help, nor does it answer the other points I raised.Allow me to help.The system you are in here is to propose a debate. A debate often has a central question that is to be resolved. Your central question is 'Is Evolution Science?'. So far so good. The next part is where you provide your argument. Your argument appears to be 'it can not be experimented with'. This implies that you think science must be experimentally based. Defining your terms is always good at this stage so that people know what you mean when you say 'evolution' because, and trust me on this, there will be frustration later on if this is not cleared up straight away.The final part is where we are really struggling here. Your defense or support of your position. I suggest you might find philosophy of science references that agree with you that all science must be experimental in nature.For bonus points, address historical and observational sciences by saying whether you consider them also non-science. I suspect you would consider many of them non scientific but it might help understand your position better if there are some you reject and others you accept as science and (importantly) why.