There is no such thing as "operational" science. This is a false distinction made by non-science types and is not the view of the sciencetific community. The only time I have seen it used is by those trying to discredit parts of science they do not agree with.
Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation. Wiki
Hence: Empirical Science or "Operational Science" (This is an Industry Term for Empirical Science) to delineate it if from Historical Sciences (Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, Cosmology, evolution et al)
With the Empirical Sciences (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, et al), by their very nature deal with OBSERVATIONS of the present and so are ripe for Experiments/TESTS. Conversely Historical Sciences study past events; therefore, you can't do EXPERIMENTS on past events and you can't verify or validate any hypothesis.
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”
(Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.)
So having said that...."Evolutionary Biology" is a contradiction in terms. They are mixing Empirical with Historical Science.