That, in effect, is the admission from Rhonda Forlow in her latest Ask Dr Rhonda post, Evolution and Science:
Q: Is evolution a scientific fact?
A: In a short answer, no. But, by the strictest definition, neither is creationism, theistic evolution, or any other origin (historical) science.
Of course her “historical science” logic is flawed, as simply dealing with the past does not make a field unscientific. If evolution isn’t science, then what is it? (It’s certainly not a religion, whatever the creationists like to say.) You can define science in such a way as to purposely exclude evolution but that’s a silly definition to use. Semantic arguments such as this do not invalidate a field either, which is the intention.
But it’s still nice when a person using this line of argument takes it to the logical conclusion and turns it on “creation science” itself. Because, evolution and historical science aside, creationism isn’t science.