saidsimply

Macro-evolution has never been tested, simply because it requires so much time that its causes are admittedly outside the manipulation of humans. To this, one could say that not all science requires a rigorous test. But this is precisely what I wish to interrogate now.

If a scientific theory is the result of the scientific method, and the scientific method doesn’t require experimentation, then religious symbolism could be considered science.

The evolutionist sees similarities and differences in biology and infers ancestry, and much the same way, the symbologist sees patterns in history and existence itself, and infers a simple, singular explanation: God created it. Neither of these ideas can be tested; both are based on observation and reason, and since we’ve admitted earlier that testing isn’t necessarily part of the scientific method, then we must conclude that both the symbologist and the biologist are performing science.

This absurdity is why you need to include experimentation inside the scientific method; it’s what differentiates science from simple reasoning and observation. However, if we say strictly that a scientific theory must include experimentation, then we must also bite the bullet: macro-evolution isn’t science.