In most cases, "soft" sciences do not use a historical record for evidence, e.g. psychology. To whatever extent they do, they would be considered "historical" sciences, e.g. anthropology.
In earlier work (Cleland [2001], [2002]), I sketched an account of the structure and justification of ‘prototypical’ historical natural science that distinguishes it from ‘classical’ experimental science. This article expands upon this work, focusing upon the close connection between explanation and justification in the historical natural sciences. I argue that confirmation and disconfirmation in these fields depends primarily upon the explanatory (versus predictive or retrodictive) success or failure of hypotheses vis-à-vis empirical evidence. The account of historical explanation that I develop is a version of common cause explanation. Common cause explanation has long been vindicated by appealing to the principle of the common cause. Many philosophers of science (e.g., Sober and Tucker) find this principle problematic, however, because they believe that it is either purely methodological or strictly metaphysical. I defend a third possibility: the principle of the common cause derives its justification from a physically pervasive time asymmetry of causation (a.k.a. the asymmetry of overdetermination). I argue that explicating the principle of the common cause in terms of the asymmetry of overdetermination illuminates some otherwise puzzling features of the practices of historical natural scientists.
To reject the observations that led to the formulation of the theory of evolution, and to its refinements over the years is to essentially reject just about all science--even physics.
Physics is the epitome of hard science.
Newton's theory has withstood many attempts at falsification and it remains accurate for classical level physics work.
However, to do physics at the quantum level, one needs Quantum Mechanics/Quantum Field Theory. Newtonian physics does not apply to that level. Likewise, to do physics at the astronomical level, one needs General Relativity because Newtonian physics does not apply to that level.
Newtonian physics is not treated as dogma as if it had to explain everything or the entire discipline of Physics would die along with it. Nor was it rewritten or modified to incorporate observations at the quantum and astronomical levels.
Compare the treatment of Newton's theory to the treatment of Darwin's theory at different levels of biological observations.
If a laboratory scientist went to lunch with streptococci in his petri dish and returned to find anthrax bacilli instead - he would not be claiming that he had just witnessed evolution, he'd be calling the FBI because a biological weapons terrorist had evidently gained access to his lab.
He would not however be surprised to see gradual changes in the bacteria over time. That he might attribute to evolution - or perhaps adaptation if the same environmental pressures evoked the same changes in every instance.
At the classical level, the field scientist would not be appealing to evolution if he found a litter of bobcats in a wolf's den. He'd be looking for a behavioral explanation or perhaps a prankster. But if he found the beaks of the local finch population to be longer than before, he might attribute it to evolution - or perhaps adaptation if the same phenomenon occurred every time there was a drought.
At the historical level, the field scientist would not be appealing to evolution if he found a human skull in the same location as a dinosaur's fossil. He'd be looking for a prankster. But if he found a less advanced dinosaur in deeper strata, he would probably attribute it to evolution.
But when he did not observe what the hypothesis called for - gradual change over time - which would have applied in the laboratory and field level, rather than falsifying the theory or coming up with a new theory for that level, he came up with a revision, i.e. punctuated equilibrium.
Thus, the theory of evolution is more like dogma than Newton's theory, i.e. "it must be preserved!"
And punctuated equilibrium is a "just so" amendment to a "just so" story. It cannot be otherwise because the evidence in the historical record is spotty. If we had the complete hard and soft tissue specimen for every organism that ever lived and witnessed its origin and the cumulative evidence did not falsify the theory of evolution, then I would not call it a "just so" story.
But as it sits, the scientist at that level is connecting the dots in a very spotty quantization of the continuum. It requires faith and thus, again, is more like dogma than Newton's theory.
And so, no, I do not find biology comparable to physics.
There are over six hundred posts on this thread and most of them talk about evolution. However, this thread was never meant to be about evolution, it is about Darwinian eugenics.
The Darwinists have killed MORE THAN ONE BILLION innocent human beings in the past century. But whenever this is brought up the Darwinists immediately try to steer the conversation into a debate about evolution and, unfortunately, we usually take the bait.