If it were only so cut and dry.
Michael Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada testified at the McLean v. Arkansas trial in the early 1980s and indeed said that creation-science is not science at all. Invoking the fact/faith dichotomy, Ruse claimed that Darwinism was scientific because establishing its validity required no philosophical assumptions. All other views, he claimed, required such assumptions and were therefore unscientific. His testimony became the centerpiece of Judge Overton's ruling and became a judicial precedent.
What does Professor Ruse say now?
He has now come to view evolution as ultimately based on several unproven philosophical assumptions.
In fact, he was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to refute Phillip Johnson's book, "Darwin on Trial." Instead, he endorsed one of its key points.
"I'm no less of an evolutionist now than I ever was," Ruse nevertheless explained that he had given fresh consideration to Johnson's thesis that Ruse himself, as "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist. . . . I must confess, in the ten years since I . . . appeared in the Creationism Trial in Arkansas . . . I've been coming to this kind of position myself."...
"Evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to naturalism," he said–that is, it is a philosophy, not just facts. He went on: "Evolution . . . akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically."
Ruse's colleagues responded with shocked silence and afterward one of them, Arthur Shapiro, wrote a commentary titled, "Did Michael Ruse Give Away the Store?"
That's it exactly. And these metaphysical assumptions should be acknowledged as such, not glossed over as if science can take place without them. No human observer can escape the philosophical assumptions with which he undertakes science, and science is not able of empirically testing which assumptions are more in accord with objective reality.
The issue, or debate, should be in regard to whether or not the results of dissimilar philosophical assumptions should be granted open expression in a public context. This is a right our Constitution guarantees, but our stubborn inclination is to become emotionally attached to our own points of view and thus denigrate our neighbor's point of view not only personally but also by legal prohibition.