Philosopher Michael Ruse stated, If theory does not have any empirical evidence in support of it, it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be science.
Like Ruse, we believe that if a concept is not testable against a reoccurring pattern of events, then it is not scientific. If we are referring to empirical science, then we are correct. Having said that, a forensic scientist, who may be forced to attempt a possible reconstruction of a murder, a murder which may have been unobserved and is certainly unrepeatable, would be rather offended is his work were referred to as unscientific. There is science that is not empirical, or not operable, and it remains a science.
The study of origins is such a science. Those who study are forced to speculate on origins whose beginnings are both unobservable and unrepeatable. Scientists who identify themselves as creationists presuppose that a god exists, while those who identify themselves as evolutionists presuppose that a god does not exist, though they would state that such a presupposition falls outside the realm of science.
Predetermined philosophies influence how scientists will interpret the facts. ‘Creation scientists’ or ‘evolutionary scientists’ both state that the universe did have a beginning. It is how such scientists interpret such a fact that determines whether they are a creationist or an evolutionist. The creationist states that a god (usually God) created the universe, while evolutionists dismiss this as, not necessarily wrong, but certainly unscientific. However as I stated earlier, the study or origins, is different than an empirical study. Reminding yourself of the forensic scientist, and many others, who are forced to reconstruct the unobservable and unrepeatable, I leave you with the following question: If evidence is interpreted as showing design in living organisms, then is it truly unscientific to conclude that there was a Designer?
Kelly J. Wilson
™ Version 4.2