At the heart of the controversy surrounding creation and evolution is how one views science. Science is often looked upon in two different senses. The first is that science is the acquisition of knowledge through impartial fact-finding by means of experimentation and observation. In this case, science involves the ability to test and carefully observe in controlled conditions. The tests must be repeatable in order for enough observation to be made in order to form any kind of conclusion. This method of science is objective and valid. However, modernism has also identified "science" with the philosophy of naturalism. In this sense science is identified with naturalism and committed to finding naturalistic explanations for everything that exists. This is not objective. It is defined by its prejudice that all phenomena can be explained by purely natural, unintelligent causes.

This brings us then to another problem with evolutionism. It involves not simply the accumulation of observed data, but rather a vast historical scenario that seeks to explain everything by purely natural, unintelligent causes. What has been observed is microevolution. This can be objectively confirmed through the process of testing and observation. However, macroevolution is another matter. It has not been observed or confirmed by anyone anywhere. It is the story that is told based upon the philosophy of naturalism. It is far from an objective reporting of facts.

There is a difference between the types of statements involved in these two concepts of science. We can say, "Variations exist within kinds (kingdoms, phyla, etc.)." This is testable and falsifiable. No one seriously disputes this. However, another might say, "Mankind evolved from the primates." This is not observed. The two statements are completely different. One is true to science; the other is an extrapolation that is far from confirmed. One has been objectively confirmed; the other is subjective speculation based upon a materialistic worldview.

The story of evolution is just that: a story. It is a massive historical scenario that attempts to fill in huge gaps. This necessarily involves a great deal of speculation that is not within the boundaries of science. As Phillip Johnson put it, "When educators say that science teaches that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, they are making a very different kind of statement than when they say that science teaches that life arose by chemical evolution without the need of assistance from God. If the educators want to teach the students to think like good scientists rather than to believe uncritically whatever ‘science says,’ then they need to teach the students that sometimes the authority of ‘science’ is used to validate claims that are based largely on speculation" (The Wedge of Truth, p. 70).

When you see the pictures of the evolution of humans, you are seeing the story, not observed science. When you see the charts depicting the evolutionary trees of the various types of animals, you are seeing the vast speculation, not a scientifically confirmed phenomena. But the story of evolution has been told so many times and identified as "science," that to question it is to question the authority of science. To ask for observed evidence of macroevolution will only serve to put you at odds with "science."