No, observation is science. When combined with other data.
It is possible for DNA to change across generations. It is possible for physical changes to occur because of said change. It is possible for some of those changes to be advantageous. (Most of them are not, but the law of averages applies. Sometimes they will be.) We can observe DNA directly. We can see the differences between generations. We can tell what those differences do. We can find the mechanism for natural change in DNA, and we note that it at times causes changes in offspring.
All we have to go on is billions of pieces of evidence, all of which is consistent with the above.
But that's not enough for you. And if it is not, we can't help you. Your voluntary stay in the dark ages will just have to continue. We tried.
Because it is very much a matter of whether or not you like it. And you don't. And that is about all it takes for you to negate it. That plus haughty questions for which no answer will ever be good enough.
Which is a great combination. That you apparently evolved to value. At least appreciate that part.
Yes, observation is science but observation alone
is not science.
I appreciate that you have considered all of the fossil and DNA evidence that purports to make a valid claim for the Theory of Evolution being both a fact and a theory….but, again, and I cannot stress this enough….if your conclusion is not based on conclusions via the scientific method, the even as outrageous as it may seem
to you, your conclusions are an assumption. You simply cannot demonstrate scientifically that what you believe to be true is, in reality, true. That’s the point. You have formed a conclusion but it is not a scientific one.