Theology should operate on a rigerous methodology, and as much as any other discipline should be 'scientific' in its approach. Like all academic fields of knowledge, it can be characterized as a scientific pursuit.
That said (and pay attention here, mark kennedy), it is not one of the hard, natural, physical sciences.
It does not make the same assumptions as the hard sciences (uniformitarianism, methodological naturalism) because it, by definition, deals with supernatural facts and changing systems (covenant economies, etc.).
Like all rigorously academic fields, theology is also capable of interacting with other academic fields (sciences, according to mark kennedy), include history and the hard, physical, natural sciences. But when it interacts with others fields, it should interact on their terms- this is simply the case with all interdisciplinary interaction.
When a theologian seeks to historically defend the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the theologian should act as a historian, using historical methodologies and criteria.
And when a theologian seeks to make scientific claims about the natural world, the theologian should act as a scientist, using scientific methodologies and assumptions.
But theology is not a hard, natural, physical science any more than it is history. Certainly the theologian's job is similar to the scientist- like the scientist, the theologian seeks to collect as many relevant facts as possible from the Holy Scriptures and deduce from them the underlying systems (covenant economy, Trinitarianism, redemptive-history, metascientific claims like original sin, etc.).
In this way, history is also a science. Historians collect data from primary source documents and archaeological finds and assembles them into an overaching historical narrative.
But neither history nor theology are hard, physical, natural sciences, and neither operates on the same assumptions because neither is dealing with the same set and type of data.
