Historical and Operational science
"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 widely appears solely in arguments presented by creationists about whether ideas such as abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang Theory are really scientific.
 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.
 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?|
- ↑ 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"