Evolutionists often talk about science. For example, they will often claim that evolution is science, but creation is just religion. Meanwhile, there are creationists that declared that what they are doing is science as well. They will often point to legitimate scientific distinctions such as a theory making testable predictions. That is a creationist need to present them with testable predictions from creationist theories, particularly successful ones. When we do this, then they will often start insisting that it is still not scientific because it is not totally naturalistic. Their ultimate argument against creationists, when presented evidence either against naturalistic views of origins or in favor of Biblical creation, is that it does not qualify as scientific evidence unless it has been approved by the peer review journals of institutionalized science.
Often for evolutionists, it is not about whether or not the research is done properly, whether it is done with good scientific methodology, or even how well the researcher follows the scientific method. When you get into a discussion, unless the data or research has been anointed by the high priests of scientism, and anointed with the blessing of their peer review, most evolutionists refuse to recognize it as science. Without this blessing, they do not want to even hear what you have to say. in the minds of such people once this blessing is given it magically becomes science, and it must be labeled pseudoscience without it. While they may not use such terminology, it illustrates the point, that they hold to peer review by the right people with a religious fervor particularly when they are admitted atheists.
This bubble of protection in which evolutionists place the Big Bang to man evolutionary theory is not restricted to protection against creationists, but anyone who dares present data that contradicts the evolutionary model. It is a natural result of the viewpoint that has been given a monopoly in public education. It is by protecting evolutionary theory from challenges that most students can go through their entire education, including graduate work, and never encounter any weaknesses in evolutionary theory except maybe in ridicule. The key to this bubble of protection is not allowing any opposition to this view of human origins to be considered science.
It all pretty much boils down to that in order to qualify as science by evolutionists, atheists must accept it, and it has to be approved by the right people. A major part of this process is the tendency to confuse the operational science of studying how the universe works in the present, with historical science that tries to develop a story about the past based on present-day information. The problem here is that because we cannot directly observe the past and thereby see what actually happened, assumptions need to be made. Consequently, any story invented about the past is only as accurate as the assumptions that are behind it. For example, if you assume only natural processes, but God exists and has been active in our past in a supernatural manner then you will get this story entirely wrong. You would be completely incapable of seeing and as the Bible says be “willingly ignorant” of the true history of the world and the universe. Sadly, in most cases, the stories about the past invented by evolutionists do not come with disclaimers making these assumptions clear.
The point is that when you hear an evolutionist speak about science, you have to ask yourself which way he is using science, and will he change how he is using it during the discussion. Realize that while much of what they say might have a basis in actual science, is largely theoretical conjecture that assumes the Bible is wrong. Most evolutionists will deny such assumptions, but many of them are not even aware of it themselves. You can use assumptions without being aware of it, simply because they are parts of other assumptions you are making or other principles that you already accept.