This is not correct. Firstly it should read "if it is repeatable and supported by accepted methodology (not theories, huge difference) we will accept your ideas for publication. This DOES NOT necessarily mean it is accepted by the scientific community. There are disputes within the scientific community regarding how to INTERPRET the published scientific data. In this aspect science and religion is similar. Religious people sometimes even kill each other over such disputes, while the scientific disputes seldom starts wars.
Is macro-evo observable and testable?
Is it not accepted by the peer review as being both even though no one has ever seen it?
Is not the excuse that if micro can happen so can macro?
So no repeatable test is required. If your idea agrees with current accepted views, and the scientific community, you hit the jackpot. If not it won't even get to first base.
Bad analogy. The conformance is NOT on the theories, but on the process of establishing the theories.
Name one person who has challenged any main established theory, and did this in public that has not had their reputation effected negatively?
Creation science is like a soccer player using his hands, not understanding why he is expelled from the game.
It's because of two things. Because science will not investigate anything supernatural, without bias and prejudice, it's automatically rejected. And because science does not allow God to be talked about in their circles, God and His followers are rejected.
So science is like playing a soccer game where one side gets to break the rules while the other side get penalized for those same rules.
Your analogy would hold more water if it was used to support that you need to have A RELIGIOUS FAITH, but not necessarily THE RELIGIOUS FAITH.
Perfect example is the acceptance of TE in science but the rejection of anyone who does not allow evolution to control what they believe in their religious faith. Nice try.