2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Historical and operational science

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon creation.svg

This creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

firm up?[edit]

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[edit]

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). Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: 113.253.49.83 / talk / contribs