This is the opposite of what I meant. Darwinism is is a scientific theory par excellence. A lot of that "testable predictions" philosophy of science was inspir

This is the opposite of what I meant. Darwinism is is a scientific theory par excellence. A lot of that "testable predictions" philosophy of science was inspired by darwinism. First, a scientific theory doesn't need to make only testable predictions. It just needs to make a testable prediction. Testing it doesn't "prove" the theory, it just subjects the theory to falsification. Second, "testable/falsifiable" doesn't strictly mean "testable in practice." Even if it's not practical to test a prediction. EG, new species of bat will emerge in the future. We don't live long enough to test this in practice, but theoretically, it is a testable prediction. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable. "Origin of Species" itself is full of predictions, some tested by Darwin himself and after is death. At this point, evolution has made so many predictions, that it is very very unlikely to be true. Unlikely, but nothing in science is proven beyond doubt ever. Newtonian physics was "disproven" by Einstein. To do that though, Einsten's theory had to predict Netwonian physics.