Answers in Genesis, the Young Earth Creationist site, has a nice piece on the difference between operational and origins science – a distinction that evolutionists are unwilling (or unable) to make. This discussion occurs in the context of dicussing the self-admitted "story telling" done in the Field Museum of Chicago’s evolution exhibit. They also have a detailed review of the Field Museum of Chicago’s evolution exhibit. Here’s some quotes from the story telling piece:
Now, when it comes to the issue of origins (the topic of the Evolving Planet exhibit), this is very different from the observational science that has helped produce our technology. “Origins science” involves beliefs about the past that cannot directly be tested—beliefs about how the universe and life arose when there were no human witnesses.
Most visitors who go through evolutionary exhibits like Evolving Planet don’t realize that they are being subject to “storytelling” about the past….
The Creation Museum, though, will do what the Field Museum doesn’t: it will teach the truth about the difference between “operational science” and “origins science.” In that way, true scientific literacy will be greatly enhanced for the visitors who see the various exhibits.
At the same time, AiG will clearly show that observational science (the science of genetics, for example) overwhelmingly confirms the history (true “story”) recorded in Genesis, but does not confirm the evolutionary history (the false “storytelling”) as promulgated by the Field Museum and other secular natural history museums….
Some of the stuff in this article is a little silly, like warning evolutionists that their indoctrination is creating the amoral viewpoint of the future generations – I mean, it may be true, but I doubt that evolutionists are interested in the moral or ethical implications of evolutionary thinking (heck, they often deny any impact on ethics, or try to whitewash the links to eugenics and social darwinism), or of such warnings from a biblical creationist. They are merely interested in "science." Or so they believe.