Help us beat last year's record of $7100!
|Goal: $7,200||Donations so far: $120|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate today!
Historical and operational science
“”Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
"Historical science" is a term used to describe sciences in which data is provided primarily from past events and for which there is usually no direct experimental data, such as cosmology, astronomy, astrophysics, geology, paleontology and archaeology. The term is often misused by creationists for any science that "interpret[s] evidence from the past and includes the models of evolution and special creation." It is used to designate those sciences which creationists have complaints about, such as evolution and abiogenesis, and is the opposite of operational or experimental science.
"Operational science" (not to be confused with Operations Research) is a term coined by creationists for any science that "deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers, cars, and satellites.".
The term "Operational science" and the creationist understanding of "Historical science" are not considered valid scientific terminology, and primarily appear in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific. As Bill Nye pointed out when debating Ken Ham, even Ken Ham admits that the distinction is entirely a creationist invention, and no scientist not on the AiG payroll agrees with him about it.
 Support for Historical Science
In her 2001 paper, "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method," Dr. Carol Cleland of the Department of Philosophy and Center for Astrobiology at the University of Colorado in Boulder writes:
“”Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.
The National Center for Science Education points out on their website that:
“”Philosophers of science draw a distinction between research directed towards identifying laws and research which seeks to determine how particular historical events occurred. They do not claim, however, that the line between these sorts of science can be drawn neatly, and certainly do not agree that historical claims are any less empirically verifiable than other sorts of claims.
Michael Shermer writes in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things, that:
“”Science does deal with past phenomena, particularly in historical sciences such as cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archeology. There are experimental sciences and historical sciences. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science.
 Claims by Creationists
In the words of AiG:
“”Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.
|—Answers in Genesis, What Is Science?|
(The ironic part is that while they claim that both creationists and gravitationists - we mean evolutionists, normally make assumptions on how the world works, they quickly show their bias by accusing the second group of "denying" their god's work, instead of just searching for facts and evidence while making the least (unfalsifiable and irrational) assumptions without having a biased presumption on what they will/should find, their belief in said god is supposed to be an assumption according to their previous words, not a solid fact as they really want others to think; Not to mention that their "proof" of their god's role in the world is just as valid as that of other religions (their religious scriptures and claims), showing Special pleading. That, and when science makes an "assumption", it is in fact at first a Falsifiable hypothesis which can either pass the test by fitting in the evidence mold, or be modified to hone its accuracy using recent findings, or fail completely and be rejected, and a scientific theory is well past the hypothesis stage. Finally, why of all scientific theories is biological evolution the one that somehow contradicts their scripture, but not (anymore) the heliocentric model or Ellipsoid Earth?)
 Other examples of "non-operational" science
History is not the only barrier to direct viewing and repeating in science. Many of the famous examples of solid scientific discoveries were, and are, not open to direct viewing and repeating. Things which are too small or too big, too fast or too short, or too distant or too hard to get to, are all subjects in science.
Newtonian science discovered that gravity applied to all of a space, not only to the surface of the Earth. Not until the 20th century was it possible to make repeatable tests of Newton's laws more a few miles up. (And even today we can dig only a few miles down to learn first-hand about the interior of the Earth.) An opponent of Newton's physics could ask, "Are you there?" (only God is in outer space to see what is doing there).
Much of quantum mechanics relies on the reality of electrons and other sub-atomic particles and forces which cannot be directly observed. The chemical bond, electronics, and nuclear physics make sense only by these unobservables.
An early scientific discovery is that the Evening Star ("Hesperus") and the Morning Star ("Phosphorus") were observations of the same object, Venus. Direct observations of the transition change was not possible because the Sun would hide it, either as it happens on the far side of the Sun, or as it happens on the near side, in the glare of the Sun. The shadow was not seen until a transit of Venus was observed in 1639. (Of course, the identity was so accepted by everyone that this "confirmation by operational science" was not worth remarking.) 
- ↑ Answers in Genesis - "What Is Science?"
- ↑ Roger Patterson. "Chapter 1: What is science?" Evolution Exposed - Biology. Answers in Genesis. 2007 February 27.
- ↑ Cleland, Carol, Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method (2001)
- ↑ National Center for Science Education - "Historical science" vs. "experimental science"
- ↑ Much of the information about this discovery is to be found in the discussion about the philosophical topic "Frege's Puzzle". The recognition that that bright light which appears in many mornings is one and the same object (the Sun) is also "non-operational".