I could have used the example of a loaf of bread, where it starts out all gooey and ends up light and fluffy... evolution is a slow and gradual process, a continuum, where we can only observe snapshots taken at time points that are very far apart.
I don’t know what you call “soft” science, unless you’re referring to things like sociology, which I don’t consider a science at all.
Most people would consider my discipline—Biochemistry and Molecular Biology—a “hard” science. I can assure you, from years of experience, that it is more of an art than anything else. There are very few scientific questions that have straight up or down answers. Experiments designed to give a straightforward answer don’t. Data is always interpreted with caveats reflecting the understanding that someone else could always come along with another interpretation that withstands testing. And so forth. Trying to determine which interpretation is closest to the truth really is an art.
You could have used a loaf of bread as your example, but it would only have dug the hole deeper. I mean the bread doesn’t mix, pour, or bake itself does it?
As to biochem or molecular biology being arts it seems that you are confusing natural and normal scientific debate with opinion. The peer review process will always have dissent. It is a fundamental part of the system. That is not art as it is not subjective in the least bit over time.
The scientific method is a search for truth. The conclusion drawn after testing isn’t subjective, although it involves drawing conclusions. If one were able to simply state opinion as fact at that point then it would be art. Instead your results are publicly transmitted, argued or supported publicly and eventually are lost or become theories, but just theories. Math is based on proofs and so is science. At the outer edges of both there are theories.
Art on the other hand is the pursuit of beauty. Beauty is wholly subjective and... fleeting. ;-]