Could you support that assertion? What is incorrect about that practice?
I am also unclear about how the distinction is made. When the conclusion that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to any other species is drawn from biochemical evidence that can be repreatedly demonstrated in the present day, is that “historical” or “operational”?
Briefly, historical science involves a much, much greater amount of assumptions than experimental science. We cannot view the thing happening, and we cannot repeat the happening.
It’s simple to understand. Imagine a forensic investigator. Now ask any forensic investigator: “Would you rather have to piece together a series of events based upon evidence at a crime scene, or would you rather be able to view the event happening yourself, personally?”
Even the best investigator if honest would pick the latter option. But we cannot rewind time.
When the conclusion that humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than to any other species is drawn from biochemical evidence that can be repreatedly demonstrated in the present day, is that “historical” or “operational”?
Historical. We cannot view humans evolving from apes, that is a story about the past.
Isn’t every story about the past, even in experimental science? Once you do an experiment, it’s in the past.
Yes, that’s correct, but with experimental science we can keep on repeating the experiment as much as we like, to confirm our results were accurate. And when we do experiments we actually see the thing happening (most of the time, at least), which is not the same as when dealing with stories about the past.
I see you’re unwilling to question that faith or examine our own resulting bias.
That’s not correct. My faith is based upon sound reasoning, not blind assumptions. But it is still a faith nonetheless.
This is your assumption, which you are unwilling to question.
It’s a belief, a faith, that I have adopted for a whole host of various reasons. I questioned it, but I decided it was more rational to believe the Bible is true than to deny it.
I agree that the Bible is true. It’s the wild leaps in your interpretation that lose me.
Was there perhaps a smoking gun?
No, just a lot of personal experiences and various pieces of evidence that I feel are best explained in that way. No one ‘smoking gun’.
I would be curious to know what you believe these wild leaps are at some point.
But apparently it’s strong enough that all other evidence must be ignored or, if you prefer, interpreted so as to agree with your current belief. This is not conducive to understanding science.
Most of the founders of modern science were Christians who expressed faith in Scripture as the word of God. Clearly this claim is hot air.
But that makes an error that I think plagues much of this line of thinking. You are talking about specific aspects of the event that may have a degree of uncertainty associated with them, and so which need to be pieced together from the evidence available. For instance, if we find the DNA of a suspect at the scene, that is evidence that the suspect was there, but perhaps he was there for some other reason and did not commit the crime.
OTOH, if the victim was found with a knife embedded in his heart, and there is no evidence of any other cause of death, then we know, which as much certainty as we know many things in so-called “operational science”, that the person was stabbed and this caused his death. Yet that would also fit your criteria of “historical” rather than “operational.” No?
And, in the above example, we cannot view the victim alive and being stabbed in the heart. That is also a “story about the past.” But we know what happened. It is not just a guess that is likely to be wrong.
And yet they didn’t let that faith prevent them from altering their understanding of Scripture when necessary to conform to their discoveries. Consider, for example, Galileo, who allowed data to support the Copernical view despite what the Church interpreted as statements of geocentrism in the bible. You of course also follow this reinterpretation.
Your imagination is lacking. He could have been poisoned with a poison that left no trace, and then the knife could have been placed there after death in order to mislead. Or for some other unknown reason.
And, in the above example, we cannot view the victim alive and being stabbed in the heart. That is also a “story about the past.” But we know what happened. It is not just a guess that is likely to be wrong.
No, you believe you know what happened. In this case, you are very probably correct, but still it is only a probability. The further back in time you go, the harder it becomes to assign a probability of knowledge.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, YEC makes a big deal out of distinguishing observational science, but then make conjectures about the past which have NO support from observational science, whereas mainstream science follows the outcomes of observational science to reconstruct the past. You have already been presented with several examples of this, such as radiometric dating, tectonic drift, pretty much all of geology…
This is a skewed view of history. It was more about politics and the views of Aristotle than it was about the Bible.
I take the resurrection to be a high caliber “smoking gun” 