A very frequent claim of non-Christian's (members of such groups as Scientism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc,) is that they follow science when the word they should be using is something else, perhaps materialism, Naturalism, evolutionism, or old earthism.  These all fall into the realm of religious beliefs.  There is no way that science supports these.  In fact, every one of these four main isms is scientifically impossible.  These are all things that would violate the most powerful laws of science such as The First Law of Thermodynamics (no energy or matter self-creates), The Second Law of Thermodynamics (order and complexity do not self-create but rather self-destruct over time), the Law of Biogenesis (Life doesn't spring from non-life but only from life), and the Laws of Information (Information doesn't spring from non-information but only from information).  (read about the laws of information here, here, here, and here.) 

There are also severe problems with all four of these claims, making them non-science.  Yet, the ungodly will often try to confuse by using the word, science, when they are actually talking about something that is non-science.  A definition of science that eliminates certain possible conclusions (for instance: God, angels, demons) before looking at the evidence, is not the same meaning as science that follows the evidence where it leads.  So two people may be using the word, science, but meaning totally different things when they use the words.  This is especially confusing to those who are not aware that many people who are trying to influence them, in the media and educational indoctrination processes, are actually scheming as to the best way to deceive them.  They often say that they must use deception temporarily until they get the scientific evidence to prove their point (their religious Atheistic doctrine).  The problem for them is that the more we are able to observe, the more we realize that Naturalism, materialism, Atheism, and old-earthism are dogmas that just don't fit the facts.

Some people think that anything they read with the label, science, is true.  A politician recently stated that 95% of scientists believe in Evolutionism's stories, and then he stated that this makes Evolutionism's stories into science.  Obviously, this poor, deceived man does not know what science is.  His 95% statistic is a politician's statistic.  With the amount of coercion, peer pressure, and threats involved in the scientific community, it would take a very courageous scientist to admit his or her belief that the universe and the life in it were designed and created, but the reality is that the ratio is probably closer to 50%-50%.

The story of Evolution is neither scientific nor is it natural.  It is unscientific and supernatural.  There is no way to tell the Evolution story without violating many of the laws of science.  Evolutionists have tried have been unable to make up a story that can possibly keep from violating many laws of science.  That makes the story of Evolution a supernatural story.

What is science, really?  This question is more complex than meets the eye.

Our political friend was thinking that he was talking about operational science, the type of science that helps us live longer better lives.  Operational science is the observation of creation, yes, but much more than that.  When we observe creation, two voices speak to us about creation.  One of those voices is the voice of God.  The other voice is the voice of Satan.  We all draw our conclusions based on which of those two voices we acknowledge.  All of this happens just barely in our consciousness.  Everyone who desires to be obedient to God and to do His will can discern His voice and acknowledge Him.  Those who don't want to obey God will always be deceived by Satan.  That is the nature of science.   How can we know these things?  We know them by revelation.  In our real experience with the Almighty Creator, He speaks to us.  The Naturalists and materialists don't realize that they are responding to the voice of Satan.  In fact, they are just happy believing the message of Satan to them that they are just making up their basic presuppositions (made up claims) as long as they can accuse those who follow Christ of also making everything up.  The thing that keeps them from hearing God is that they don't want to do God's will.  They want to do their own wills.  And the thing that keeps them from seeing things as they really are is that they acknowledge Satan and refuse to acknowledge God.  Read "How Can We Know Anything?"   read

Scientific theories are tentative explanations of scientific facts.   The molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication and the recorded history of creation & flood scientific models are two different explanations of the same scientific facts.   One is based on a fabrication and Atheist doctrine, and the other is based on the recorded history in the Bible, that is, God reveals it.  Atheists and other Evolutionists get all emotional about that and misrepresent the Creation as being anti-science.   To make such a statement, they must make nonsense out of logic or re-define science.  The fact is that both are looking at the same scientific observations and coming to different conclusions, one by speculation and the other by revelation.

A scientific law is different from a theory.   Scientific laws don't try to explain scientific facts.   Laws tell what has been tested repeatedly and explain that this is highly probable to continue since no exception has ever been found.   If there are exceptions that are found during testing, then those exceptions are included in the law.   The odds are very high against anything ever violating either The First or Second Law of Thermodynamics.   No exception has ever been found.  

Evolution and the Big Bang theories are both religious beliefs about history.   They are cannot be scientifically tested.   They are uncheckable stories.   Science, on the other hand, is testable. Observations can be made and repeated. You can't do that with history. These two related and interdependent stories do violate several known LAWS of science, but the stories are modified to say that there has to be an unknown solution to this problem.   These stories would require the breaking of the First Law of Thermodynamics, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and The Laws of Probability.   That may sound crazy, but these people do not want a God.   They don't like God.   They refuse to hold Him in their knowledge.

  Romans 1:18-22 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;   Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.   For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:   Because that, when they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, neither were thankful; but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.   (This is the sin against the greatest commandment: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart.")

1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Quote from   http://creation.com/neutrinos-faster-than-light  

... when some 1970s creationist scientists proposed that light traveled much faster than today, they were attacked for their alleged ignorance that nothing could go faster than light at its current speed.   Now plenty of scientists have no problem in theory with tachyons, and some have proposed that light was much faster in the past to rescue the big bang from its horizon problem.

A more important one is the grip of the paradigm: creationist arguments are often ruled out of court because they contradict the ruling paradigm of evolutionary materialism. But a major difference is that scientists are free to criticize relativity, and healthy debate is regarded as healthy even by those scientists who disagree with the CNGS paper. Conversely, dissenters against evolution are routinely fired or have their grades reduced. This was documented in the movie Expelled, and in Dr Jerry Bergman's book Slaughter of the Dissidents.

One reason for the difference is that evolution is a belief system about origins, about history, which is not open to experimental testing, whereas the speed of neutrinos is open to experimental testing.

However, the major reason for the difference is that relativity makes no ethical demands of its followers, but if creation is true, that might imply that we are accountable to our Creator! This is what prominent evolutionists don't want. Philosopher Thomas Nagel is more candid than most:

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and naturally, hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."

End quote

There is something called historical science, but this "science" is not the same as operational science.

"Historical sciences try to reconstruct the natural history of the earth.   Scientists like Darwin try to figure out what happened in the past, all the way back to a hypothetical first living cell.   Most other fields of science are known as operational sciences which focus on how things currently behave in nature.... are limited to things that can be tested or falsified, will yield similar results if retested... Operational science can easily be described by these characteristics, but there are problems applying them to historical sciences.   No one can directly observe the past and past events cannot be tested except in limited ways."   Carolyn Reeves, AFA Journal

It is illogical to eliminate the option that God created the universe and everything in it relatively recently.   There is no evidence that eliminates this possibility and a lot of evidence that leaves this as the only logical conclusion.