Origin science is the study of singularities, that is, non repeatable occurrences, such as deaths, natural disasters, history etc. It is the study of how things happened (originated). Operation science, on the other hand, is the study of repeatable occurrences or ‘regularities’. It is the study of how things work. Origin science may find what is called a ‘primary’ cause, such as who caused the death of (or murdered) a specific person. Operation science isn’t interested in ‘primary’ causes; it is interested in what is called a ‘secondary’ cause. For example, all objects in motion will tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force—Newton’s first law of motion is an example of operation science, as are the law of gravity, computer science, medical science and mathematics.
Evolutionary science is supposed to be an example of origin science, but it uses the tools of operation science to achieve its objectives. For example, it uses the observable methods of natural selection and adaptation in order to ‘predict’ its conclusion of macro-evolution, but there are no empirical examples of macro evolution ever having occurred. Yet, naturalists cling to the theory as though it is proved.
|1. Observe the data under consideration||A death occurred. Observation shows as struggle seems to have occurred.||Natural selection (breeding) and adaptation (both are tools of operation science) seem to affect the variety of the observable species.|
|2. Propose a hypothesis||The victim was murdered. [intelligent design]||The ‘tree of life’ can be traced backwards showing all life is related and arise out of a single lifeform. This should be evident in the fossil record. [natural cause]|
|3. Conduct an experiment to test the hypothesis.||Experiments reveals DNA under the fingernails of the subject is not his but that of another person.||Uncovering the fossil record reveals no intermediate species. In fact, there seems to be a sudden appearance of all species, fully formed and distinct from one another.|
|4. Analyze the result and determine if the hypothesis is correct or incorrect||Analysis proves the hypothesis is correct—the victim was murdered.||Analysis proves the hypothesis is incorrect.|
|5. If necessary, return to step #2 and begin again.||Additional analysis is unnecessary. The victim was murdered and didn’t die of natural causes.||No satisfactory new hypothesis to prove a “natural cause” for the diversity of the species seems forthcoming.|
The problem is, the theory is not interested in how life behaved once all the species were found on Earth (i.e. in the fossil record), but how the species came to be so varied, and, indeed, how life first came to exist. How can the evolutionary theory be a true theory modeled after the scientific method, when it doesn’t even allow for intelligent origins? Archeology allows for them, and indeed predicts them when pottery and tools are unearthed. Forensic science allows for intelligent origins and predicts them, when it observes suspicious data that wouldn’t point to natural cause. But, evolutionary science rejects intelligent origins out of hand. Is this scientific method or circular reasoning?
Consider that natural cause is the hypothesis for the origin of all species. The fossil record does not support the hypothesis and is ignored, so no experimental data is considered. The conclusion is the hypothesis is correct because the hypothesis IS correct! This is circular reasoning.
 Compare this with “Scientific Method Steps”: http://chemistry.about.com/od/sciencefairprojects/a/Scientific-Method-Steps.htm