At the outset, let it be known that the writer has a science tertiary education based career. Let nothing written here be interpreted as anti-science – except when unethically practiced. Unethically? That is not even a scientific word.
Importantly, if evolution, or Neo-Darwinism (whatever you want to call it) is to be called science, we need to get a grip on what ‘science’ is. Particularly if evolution claims to be scientific ‘truth’. William A. Dembski: ‘Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favourably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.’
‘Truth’ has today become a slippery word. Liberalists claim words can mean whatever we want them to mean. Yes, the meaning of words and their usage do creep over time, particularly in the street culture. But, write a book or a scientific paper and have it checked by an editor or verified by peer review – be prepared for massive rejection over the sloppy misuse of words – even by liberalist editors. If the label on the bottle says “POISON keep out of reach of children” will a liberalist assume any meaning they wish. No, suddenly sanity returns. Therefor if a liberalist claims that evolution is true, it is true by whatever that word means to them. For the purpose of this writing, if words have any meaning at all, ‘TRUTH’ is that which best describes reality. I said ‘describe’ not ‘define’, because anything can be defined into oblivion.
Nancy Pearcey in her book ‘Finding Truth’ has the following to say. A major way to test a philosophy or worldview is to ask: Is it logically consistent? Internal contradictions are fatal to any worldview because contradictory statements are necessarily false. "This circle is square" is contradictory, so it has to be false. An especially damaging form of contradiction is self-referential absurdity -- which means a theory sets up a definition of truth that it itself fails to meet. Therefore it refutes itself. An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth -- which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, "If Darwin's theory of natural selection is true,... the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth." What is the contradiction in that statement? Gray has essentially said, if Darwin's theory is true, then it "serves evolutionary success, not truth." In other words, if Darwin's theory is true, then it is not true.
Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar's paradox: "This statement is a lie." If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie. (end of Pearcey quote)
People like to categorise things to help simplify life or group similar things together to better study them or to find them. Buttons go in this box, all the parts of the carburettor in that box, the hammer in the tool cupboard. A cake can be cut many ways, and so with science, the different fields of science can be ‘boxed’ in many ways. This is not a simple matter therefor there is a whole philosophic discipline presiding on this matter. It all comes down to what you want to achieve. As with the buttons and parts, do you want shiny buttons with shiny screws and rusty buttons with rusty screws, or every shade and shape of button and screw in it’s own box. The philosophers mentioned above will not like the way I have cut the science cake, but that is no matter because each of them will also disagree with the other.
a)Operational science can be described as any science that sets out to determine how something works using traditional tools of observation and experimentation. Examples include physics and chemistry. Theories in operational sciences can usually be thoroughly tested in order to prove whether or not the theory is true.
b)Historical science can be described as any science that attempts to piece together past events in order to explain those events. Examples would include archaeology, palaeontology, geology and police forensics. Theories generally cannot be tested and always have some level of assumptions and doubts. All theories about the formation and creation of the universe and life forms are historical science. The events are all past events that are not observable. The origin of life on earth and the origin of all species of animals and plants are historical events. They cannot be observed. Any conclusions we draw about how these events occurred will depend on assumptions that we must make, as in the many assumptions made in radiometric dating. If our assumptions are wrong then our conclusions are wrong.
c)Applied science is the application of existing scientific knowledge to practical applications, like robotics, designing and building computers, food production and storage. Science generally serves no ultimate purpose unless the knowledge solves a problem or leads to a useful invention.
WIKI describes Philosophy of science as a sub-field of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science (Science from Latin: Scientia/Scire to know - knowledge). The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics , ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.
It is important to remember that “science” is not something fantastical and out of bounds to the ordinary man. “Science” means “KNOWLEDGE.” And lack of knowledge puts the unsuspecting person at jeopardy in the hands of those who misuse and misinterpret knowledge to promote their ideologies and world views.