I fail to see this fundamental flaw of which you speak. The ToE explains much observable evidence in many different scientific fields. Like any other scientific theory it is falsifiable; and If any evidence were to emerge that called it into question, then it would be called into question. All you have to do is present that evidence if you think it exists.

If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.

You also seem to think that the ToE cannot be tested. Yet this is what happens all the time. If any fossil were found "out of sequence" in situ and no one could find any explanation for it, then we'd have a major discovery on our hands. Likewise, genetics could have blown the whole thing out of the water but it didn't. I really am interested in why you say you think the opposite.

Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?