Ernst Mayr might suggest that this is "physics"-centric view of science.
One can "do science" without numbers. That depends on the nature of the
question. Numbers and quantification can be nice to have, but they're not
everything. I'd say "it ain't science without the method".
> What exactly is science defined as? As I understand the scientific
> method, in order to establish something indisputably, it must be
> replicable.
Can we imagine no event or outcome which cannot be replicated and yet
can be established indisputably? I've performed experiments for which
the outcomes were difficult if not impossible to replicate. However,
I was able to determine the steps which lead to the result.
> Where does this leave much of the investigation into the distant
> past with issues such as evolution/creation?
Everything happens in the past, at least by the time one notices.
What distinguishes the near past from the distant past? Perhaps
the quality of physical evidence. I suspect that the evidence
for common descent can be quite good at times.
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against examining the evidence we
> have now, but I sometimes wonder 'just how much can we actually
> establish?' I hear people assume evolution has been proven, and
> others saying it's been disproven: is either statement valid?
> CAN either be?
See Ernst Mayr's "The Growth of Biological Thought", or Elliot Sober's
"Philosophy of Biology". And try working it out for yourself.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com