Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.
And how about astronomy? Objectively, it consists in the recording and interpretation of electromagnetic radiation impinging on the earth. How is it that these interpretations gain the status of FACT ?
The repeatable measurements are scientific, but the interpretations of those measurements as they relate to the unobservable, unrepeatable past are nothing more than inferences, or educated guesses if you will.
Much of geology couldn’t be called science, because most of the processes are so slow they can’t be directly observed but only inferred from the geological record.
But those same geological processes can be observed in artificial, experimental conditions, in which they have been greatly speeded up. Geology is a science because it receives confirmation from physics and chemistry.
The same cannot be said for Darwinian evolution. It isn’t just that we don’t observe it in nature; we don’t observe it even under artificial, experimental conditions. Fruit flies have been zapped with radiation for fifty years; enough radiation to produce horrible mutants with extra feet growing out of their heads and extra wings on their feet...BUT NO NEW SPECIES. Still the same old fruit flies.
I think we might say this:
In Darwin’s day, evolution was (to quote Karl Popper) a “metaphysical research programme”; i.e., a way of looking at the world that could guide the sort of research one did, and the sort of questions one asked.
Since the age of biochemistry and molecular biology, however, Darwinian evolution can be considered, and should be considered, A FAILED SCIENCE, not a “non-science.” It is perfectly legitimate to ask “Can random mutation plus natural selection either cause life to come into existence from non-living matter; and can it cause one species to change into another?”
It’s pretty clear from biochemistry and molecular biology that the answer is no.
This doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as “change over time”; everyone knows (and always knew) that change over time existed. It means that CHANCE cannot explain such change.