To determine whether special creation and/or evolution meet the requirements of science, they need to be compared to an acceptable definition of science. Two modern definitions of science from respected authorities are:

"any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation." [1]

"knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation." [2]

The above definitions are slightly different but essentially the same so either or both may be used to answer the question.

First, special creation and evolution are systems of categorizing knowledge and therefore comply with the requirement that includes “any system of knowledge.” Second, both deal with the origins of species that are or were part of the physical/natural world and therefore also comply with that requirement. Third, both are subject to experiments and observations. In this regard, neither meet the observable and repeatable requirement tests used in the scientific method(s) for exact science. Both special creation and evolution cannot fulfill this requirement because the origin of each species occurred a long time ago and is therefore not observable today or repeatable. Instead, a lower standard of logical proof must be utilized in making their cases for origins.

Exact science primarily employs deductive logic that generally can be stated as if this is true then this must be true and the test of the hypothesis and prediction designed accordingly. The results of this type of proof are said to be certain (i.e. proved true or false). Origin of life sciences primarily use inductive logic that starts from specific observations and/or experiments and attempts to make the case for some general hypothesis. The results of inductive logic may be said to be weak or strong but never is the probability 100 percent.

Everything in this world has religious implications. This includes what we do and our interpretations of what is visible and what is invisible. True science cannot therefore exclude a hypothesis or theory just because it has religious implications as that would exclude everything.

There has been an objection mainly by evolutionists that special creation invokes concepts that cannot be scientifically proven such as the existence of God. Although biblical creationists believe that God created everything outside natural laws, they also believe that the natural world testifies to its Creator. "For since the creation of the world His Invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what is made..." (Romans 1:20, NASB) Those that believe in special creation have no problem in making its case based solely on the design shown in the physical world.

It should be noted that those that believe in evolution (i.e. macro evolution) in the West are generally atheists. They use evolution to promote their beliefs and have censored and expelled those that hold special creation views from publications and the scientific community. [3] This discrimination against highly professional scientists promotes bad science that is plagued by circular reasoning, speculations, assumptions and secondary assumptions, opinions stated as fact, highly prejudiced reviews of contrary facts, ignoring certain facts and the preservation of many myths of evolution.

 In conclusion, special creation and evolution can both be scientific endeavors provided they follow the procedures and rules for good science. Good science is unbiased and allows hypotheses to be tested and falsified (i.e. proved wrong).

_________________________________

[1] Science definition, Encyclopedia Britannica, August 20, 2014, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528756/science

[2] Science definition, Merriam-Webster Online, August 20, 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/true-or-false/index.htm

[3] Expelled, DVD produced by Premise Media Corporation, 2008