To continue Justin's quote:
"This stupid particle physics worship involves a really profound failure to grasp the simple (though not easy) point that the virtues of physics, though considerable, are not the same as the virtues of science. There is a lot of science that isn't remotely like particle physics. Evolutionary biology, for example, doesn't permit precise predictions. For the most part it doesn't allow for expression in exact equations. Its basic theory can be expressed in English, without any math, that a fifth grader can grasp. Its explanations are narrative histories. But if it's not science, then something's wrong with your definition of science."
The virtues of physics _are_ the virtues of science, or at least those virtues are the virtues of _theoretical_ science. Unfortunately for the fate of scientific knowledge there are not many good and grand theories out there. Particle physics is one. Evolutionary biology is another. So maybe there are two great scientific theories all in all. The rest might follow scientific methods... self-correction, falsifiability, repeatability, sufficient abstraction to apply in general cases, etc... but they are pretty thin and not very deep. But I don't think it is true that evolutionary biology is essentially narrative, at least not since the emergence of the modern synthesis. Or put it this way, to the extent that evolutionary biology is primarily narrative it is a very wobbly theory.
_