What is Science?

This used to be a simple question to answer.
In my much younger days of scientific and mathematical research and practice, theories were hypotheses (informed guesses drawn from the observation of multiple examples) that could be verified or falsified by experimentation.
Further, a theory had to be capable of producing practical, duplicate examples and of predicting future events.

Indeed, a scientific theory could only be considered a statement about reality if it followed these principles of scientific theory.
As human beings on planet Earth, we are most commonly aware of gravity, now considered a universally established and accepted law, because of our confidence in its ability to withstand all challenges to its ability to describe reality.

Science that follows these principles could be called by numerous descriptors - operational, experimental, observational, structural sciences.
We will call them the "exact sciences" here.
Indeed, it has become imperative to use such a term now that the science space has been invaded by philosophy (or religion, if I were brave enough to use that descriptor).

These historical-interpretative theories, like creation, evolution and significant components of cosmology, speculate about the origin of the universe and its inhabitants.
They might use the currently observable (but not original) data around us, but can hardly produce duplicate origin examples or be subject to a verifiable/falsification process.
Origin events only happen once (do not have multiple examples) and, since observers were not available at the exact time of their happening, contemporary scientists have no examples (original or duplicate) to experiment on, to be verified or to be falsified.

These philosophical theories have hijacked the "science" descriptor, possibly because it is scientists who usually tout them, or because a relationship to the exact sciences has been attributed to them.
We shall discuss this relationship possibility in a future post.

To these historical-interpretative sciences, if they must be called science at all, we will give the name "origin sciences", as they do not follow the principles of science theory as do the "exact sciences".
Three origin sciences are staunchly defended belief systems about what happened in the unobservable past and will be discussed on this blog over the course of the year.
But for now, just a brief introductory description of each ...

Evolution is a philosophical doctrine based on matter and materialistic principles driven by mutation and selection.
To many it has become a basic, universal principle that is taken for granted: to others it is seen as imaginative speculation.

Creation is a biblical doctrine based on the existence of a Creator, the God of the Bible, who was present at the origin events and whose creative activities cannot be explained by natural laws.
To many it is a basic principle that is taken for granted: to others it is seen as an unenlightened view based on the assumption that the Bible is the literal Word of God.

Theistic Evolution is a doctrine based on a marriage of evolution and creation - God used evolution as a means of creating.
To many it is a means of accommodating science and the Bible: to others it describes a marriage of incompatibles, a random process lacking in purpose and design with a deliberate, planned process of intelligent design and purpose.

We shall discuss and evaluate their competing claims as possible explanations of the unobservable past in future posts.

So, to answer our lead question, science has become a mix of exact and origin studies, those that follow the traditional principles of scientific theory and those that are belief systems that have scientific connections.

As usual, your critical review is invited and will be most welcome.
Blessings, Barry