RAZD, I would say you haven't proven that truth is only true if it is scientific.
I would say the true implication is this;
Some scientific theories have led to truth because they were testable scientifically bu the ones that are clearly true, can all be directly tested.
I think that's all you have shown. However, there is an important difference between the various theories, some scientific tests are more consequential than others and evolution is unable to be put under those tests.
For example, exotic air, gravity, germ theory, forces, can be directly tested and they reveal an ENDLESS induction of identical results. They also reveal the same deductions. They can be tested operationally in the present and we can clearly conclude from the same results, that we have found "truth" scientifically.
When people fall to the ground, people not falling off the earth at it's other side, etc...all of the direct tests we can do to show there is some force keeping us on earth, can be performed any time we want, to prove to each other those things are true. We can place a rat in a sealed dome and see if it loses consciousness, we can see germs under the microscope.
So the problem with your argument is that it seeks to tar all science with the same brush but logically I can prove that macro evolution cannot be directly scientifically tested in an identical way as the aforementioned description.
You cannot, in a lab, show a bellows type lung evolve into a contraflow lung or a scale which is actually part of a whole skin, evolve proto-feathers that lead to feathers. You cannot show a prokaryotic cell evolved into a proto-eukaryotic cell, by showing the bacteria migrate into the cell to create the organelle.
None of these things are factual, scientifically, they are all claims of the historical claim of macro evolution and cannot be tested directly. You have to believe the, "just so" story together with circumstantial evidence, in order to accept that this happened in history, against the immense sophistication of design in nature as proven by biomimetics.
So I believe essentially and I say this without any personal offence meant whatsoever, as I do appreciate you and always have, but essentially your argument is a
sweeping generalisation fallacy. That; "because science is known to reveal truth and evolution is science, therefore evolution is true."
Secondly, if you argue that "science is the only way to reveal truth," it does not therefore follow that, "if something is true therefore it is science."
You have a silent assumption/premise, you haven't stated, which is that, "there is no truth outside of science".
That is based on argumentum ad ignorantiam and logical positivism;
that because, "we cannot detect certain thing P scientifically, therefore it is not there and is false".
Disclaimer: if however you are not really attempting to argue those things, and are not going that far, fair enough, but it seems to me these are the real reasons why evolutionists argue these types of arguments from scientific authority, as a kind of
argument from authority.
Really all science is, is a representation of modernity. There isn't one magical, uniting method which can give you evolution, really science is just
glorified reasoning. Science like evolution was accepted by men, not for scientific reasons because all of those things Darwin argued, are not presently accepted by evolutionists by and large, meaning science accepted evolution predicated on false things such as monera, false things such as natural selection alone resulting in speciation, false concepts such as the simplicity of the cell, and it's assumed plasticity, etc....scientists today accept evolution for more convoluted reasons, but really if we base evolution as a claim on it's original form, it was accepted based on wrong reasons, and now they create reasons to carry on accepting it by creating new reasonings.
But why should intelligent people accept the new reasons when they were wrong the first time out?
So it's a myth that science is this perfect tool, IMHO.
™ Version 4.2
(1)