We live in a universe made up of matter and energy, a material universe. [M]ost individuals believe that the universe includes something in addition to matter and energy, but science is limited to the latter two. [pg 3]
I am so thankful that Scott started out her book with this acknowledgment. Science does not address everything, nor can it. But, for the material universe, it is well suited for the task.
Because, Scott gladly tells us, science relies on the natural world "as the arbiter of truth."  Unlike, say, Authority, which could be misinformed or lying; Revelation, which relies on supernatural powers with which at least someone disagrees (e.g. Greek gods, Muhammad, Mormons, Catholics can't agree on what is right); Logic, which requires that we properly understand the "real world" before it is of any practical application. 
But Science! Ah, Science; Science goes to the natural world for verification. Even so, Scott notes, this is "not perfect."  Scott then rambles on for a few pages about all the ways that Science has found itself wrong over time; constantly correcting wrong ideas, and ultimately getting us every closer to truth... but always open to further illumination. In fact, Facts are the "least important" aspect of scientific inquiry, behind Hypotheses and Laws with Theories at the top. And a Theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." 
Theories aren't just hunches. Instead, they rely on "inferential reasoning"... which makes them scientific and therefore... umm... well... er... she doesn't say. But she does want us all to know that "most people" don't use the term properly. 
Using the powerful scientific "if/then" model, we can test even evolution scientifically. And here we go:
1. If life came from a common ancestor, then distant past things should be different from what we see today. And, Scott assures us, "this is indeed what we see."  But we'll have to take her word as an Authority on that because she cites nothing here (though, she hinted at possibly doing it later in this book).
2. If evolution happened, simple organisms will be in old rock and more complex ones will be in newer rock. Again, we're told this is what scientists have found. No footnotes, references, or data whatsoever. All we get is one nice scientific sounding phrase: Cambrian period.
3. We should see "connecting forms between the major groups." There isn't as much of this, Scott admits, but there are two reference titles she mentions that demonstrate "good evidence" of connecting forms.  I don't have access to these titles, but there are enough books published by other scientists--who have read and studied much more than I--that question this interpretation of the fossil record to leave me still skeptical. But, we could all be wrong... so... <shrug>
4. We should not see jumbled sets of fossils. And we don't. Instead, things stay in their proper layers the world over.  If this is true--again, no sited evidence, but she's got to be basing this claim on something--I must admit that is intriguing. I don't know what kind Logic Creationists have against this observation. I'm guessing that they'd point to a tree or something. Of course, people disagree.
Scott closes this chapter with this:
Evolution, like other sciences, requires that natural explanations be tested against the natural world. ...The heart of creationism--that an omnipotent being created--is not testable by science, but fact claims about the natural world made by creationists can be. 
It's petty, but I didn't realize that evolution was its own science. Does gravitation have its own science? What about electron theory?
I mean, sure, she's writing a book on the topic, but does that mean it should be its own science?
But I do appreciate her comments about science's relationship to creationism. She makes a solid point, and one that is well worth remembering on both sides of discussion.
I may flesh out these ideas more in my next post. But for now, I leave you with just this brief summary of Scott's brief glimpse into the world of science.
Filmmaker, Writer, Expectant Father