Talk:Historical and operational science

firm up?
If this really is a creationist canard then shouldn't it be firmed up a bit?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Evolution IS the creationists' operational science
Seriously. Even if God created everything 6,000 years ago, life would still have evolved since then. It is simply impossible for life to not have the capacity for evolution. Describing this behavior is operational science (cf Lenski). 09:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As I understand this, it says that anything that you say about the past is open to doubt. If even evolution is observed in the present as necessary for life, we don't know life was in the past. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Operational what?
Are you sure you mean operational? Anytime I've heard the creationist side make a distinction to historical science they call it OBSERVATIONAL science, which tbh makes much more sense anyway.5.146.47.75 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Evolution as forensic science, just not what creationists actually want it to be
A scientist analyzes fossils, sediment samples, bacterial deposits, geological formations and the like. Though the evidence points to an old Earth and not a young Earth. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Related paper on historical science
There is recently a published paper which talks about historical science. You may find it useful. It is available at http://eiris.it/ojs/index.php/scienceandphilosophy/article/view/728. The paper talks about how historical science organizes its knowledge in terms of theory, model and experiment like operational or experimental science, and the paper indicates how these two sciences differ.