By narrowly circumscribing science to strict empiricism, creationists continually argue that evolution cannot qualify as scientific. However, science so restricted is not science that will get you very far and that's why science has changed. Scientists found long ago that they have to go beyond strict empiricism - unfortunately, this isn't a move which everyone has been willing to make. Strict empiricism is a fine start for scientific investigation, but it's only just the beginning.
Strict Empiricism, Inductive Reasoning, and Deductive Reasoning
So what was the move which scientists have made to go past strict empiricism? Essentially, it was the move away from strict inductive reasoning towards including more deductive reasoning. Science's reliance upon inductive reasoning can be traced back to the scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon and the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid. They were, in fact, the first to formulate rules for inductive inference.
But Baconian inductive reasoning, which involves using observations and experiments as a basis for generalization towards explanations and theories, is limited. That is why science today also makes extensive use of deductive reasoning, which involves creating hypotheses which not only account for our observations but go beyond them. This, however, has not been accepted by creationists today. Consider this definition of science from Henry M. Morris:
The systematic observation and correlation of present physical relationships and natural process involving the properties of matter, the forces of nature and the phenomena of life.
The key word here is "present." According to creationists, scientists are able to speculate and hypothesize about both the past or future, but observations can only be made about the present. This means that the study of origins lies outside the scope of science in its "real" sense. It is because of this that creationists are able to honestly believe that theory of evolution is not a science but rather a belief and even a religious philosophy masquerading as science. Of course, if this argument is valid, that means there is no such thing as Scientific Creationism.
Creationist Science vs. Modern Science
Creationists and fundamentalists may honestly believe that deductive reasoning is just speculation, but it isn't true. Unfortunately, because creationists believe in a lawful universe created by a lawful God, it may not even be possible for them to accept a science which does not arrive at absolute and unerring discoveries. Asking them to accept a science which produces not absolute, but provisional conclusions, may be like asking them to believe that their god simply acts randomly.
It can't be argued that fundamentalists necessarily follow this narrow view of science with perfect consistency - they are certainly prone to wild speculation when it suits their needs. Nevertheless, they say that restricted induction is science, and that is important. If they ever understand that their view of science is incorrect, it might be that "foot in the door" to get them to reconsider - even if that view of science was not adhered to with any great consistency.
Indeed, it might be argued that incorrect notions are often not followed with consistency - but the people following them have convinced themselves that their notions are accurate and have probably convinced themselves that they are being consistent. I think you might have a better chance at shaking up the former than the latter. Error is hard enough to admit, but hypocrisy and inconsistency are much harder.
A more serious stumbling block is the question of truth and validity. It may simply not be possible to get a creationist to accept that genuine science does not produce "absolute truths" but instead provisional knowledge. They would have to re-think their idea of God, and that is difficult. Getting them to realize that deductive theorizing isn't so bad would probably be easy by comparison.
What the rest of us need to understand is that creationists today view science in a way very similar to how average Christians viewed science back when modern science was still generally new. Not only does this explain how fundamentalists imagine themselves to be acting "scientifically," but it also shows fundamentalism to be more modern than its adherents would likely admit.
When modern science was still young, science and traditional Christianity were still viewed as compatible, and not much happened to rock that particular boat. Thus, fundamentalists think that they are being harmonious with what they think is "real science." Telling them that they are anti-science won't work - they'll just stare at you funny. Explaining to them that they are following an idea of science which passed on a long time ago might also not help, but it has a better chance of resulting in productive dialogue. Perhaps they won't believe you, but others reading or watching the discussion can certainly learn something.
