Macroevolution has not been observed or replicated in a labratory so it remains unproven, while there is no direct proof of a God as well so it's not proven either.
Both are theorys and worldviews and depending on how you see things you will believe them (or some other world view).
Why do creationists bastardize terminology so much?
Theistic religions are not scientific theories. Scientific theories need substantial evidence and research to be theories. Scientific theories are
NOT regular theories. The word you are looking for is hypothesis which is a possible explanation for a phenomena which exists in the natural world. If you said, "When people die, it is caused by a decision from an unobservable omnipotent being" that is a
hypothesis, not a
theory.
Macroevolution has not been observed or replicated in a labratory so it remains unproven, while there is no direct proof of a God as well so it's not proven either.
Macroevolution hasn't been observed in a laboratory because it's a relatively rare occurrence. If you want to research it in better detail, research the Cambrian Explosion. The results of Macroevolution have been observed and we can get a good idea of how it happened through things like fossils, geology, and species living today.
