The category of "historical science" deals with the study of data gained from events which primarily happened in the past, and for which there is not typically any experimental data. YEC's often attempt to discredit the reliability of historical science for this reason. What is your perspective?
top of page
bottom of page
We all know that SOME information can be gleaned simply by examining things with your senses—such as the height and weight of an object. Other people can then check your results by making measurements of their own. We call this operational (or observational) science. But some research requires either making educated assumptions about the past by examining evidence in the present (historical or "origins" science) -- OR finding a primary source of information. While assumptions could be accurate, their accuracy is not observationally or empirically verifiable.
For example, some geologists ASSUME that the present-day rates of radiometric decay and rock formation have always been the same (remained constant). That’s why they think the earth is so old. But we can’t just zip back in time to test these assumptions for accuracy. According to YECs, we can check our historical research against a trustworthy eyewitness account -- God, who recorded His creation activity in the historical narratives of Genesis 1 and 2..
Recently, some revisionist historians have attempted to label the terms origin science or historical science as YEC inventions that YECs use to discredit evolution. If this is not a direct accusation, then it is at least a statement that YECs use these terms as a wedge to make a distinction between historical sciences versus operational science, so as to cause people to reject the age of the earth, while still affirming experimental science and technology. An example of this accusation is an article on the BioLogos website titled “Is Historical Science Reliable?” Another strategy is to create strawman arguments and make the blanket claim that YECs are saying that science cannot tell us anything about what happened in the past, and that to make such claims would deny us the ability to know anything about the past, including even what we ate for breakfast. But is this really a fair argument?
Did YECs "invent" the terms origin science or historical science just to discredit evolution? I would like to see some proof that substantiates that accusation. Do YECs really deny that we can know anything about the past because we weren’t there to observe it, or that any event in the past is unknowable? I think that accusation is simply absurd.
Some of these arguments seem rather disingenuous since those who accept evolution often use origins/historical science terms as descriptors themselves. For example -- “The Reliability of Historical Science,” BioLogos, December 6, 2017, https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/the-reliability-of-historical-science.
I believe that the first major use of the concept, contrasting operational (observational) science with origins (historical) science, goes back to The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984) by Charles Thaxton.
Neither creationism nor cosmic evolution nor Darwinian biological evolution is observational science, and they are not observable, testable, repeatable, falsifiable events. Therefore, you cannot “empirically prove” them. Both creationists and evolutionists have the same sets of data, the same evidence, and often the same techniques to examine the evidence. The different conclusions, therefore, must be based on presuppositions or worldviews.
YECs contend that observational science has many evidences that line up with a young earth or universe but seem contradictory to an old universe. There's a difference between “proving” something and simply "explaining" the evidence.” I realize the semantics argument creeps in here, but I think YECs are making the point that observational science exhibits evidence that can be explained to correspond to a recent creation.
Historical science (creationist or secular) by its very nature is based on a worldview. Either the universe started out as a singularity, which billions of years ago exploded and has caused an expanding universe ever since, or God created it ex nihilo. Either life evolved out of non-living chemicals, or aliens seeded the universe (but this only raises the question of how the aliens became alive in the first place), or God created life as described in Genesis 1–2. Neither theory is provable (testable, repeatable, etc.).