History of the historical vs. operational science distinction

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Eddie

@John_Harshman

That article makes the point, with an actual reference to the originator, that a creationist did indeed invent the historical/operational distinction.

The actual phrasing may have been concocted by a modern creationist, but the distinction long predates modern creationism.

@Eddie

I gave the examples of Boyle, Newton, and Kepler. I’ve taught their ideas in university courses. I’ve read their writings. I’ve made nothing up. They thought that the solar system was created by what a modern person would call a miracle, or a series of miraculous actions. They did not think it was created by natural laws acting without plan or direction. They distinguished between what it takes to originate something, and what it takes to keep it going, once originated.

Unfortunately for Eddie, this isn’t even close to being the same distinction.

Millions of years of evolutionary history would be included in “historical science”, but not in “what it takes to originate something”. So would plate tectonics, planetary histories, study of ancient languages and paleontology. Noah’s flood would likewise fall on different sides of each of these distinctions.

The distinction between “historical” vs “operational” science is a creationist invention, and should not be confused with any of the distinctions “fieldwork vs labwork”, “experimental vs observational”, “origination vs continuation” or “miracle vs non-miracle”.

@Roy

Assertion rejected (again!) due to no evidence being provided,

The evidence is found in the primary writings of the great early modern scientists, already mentioned, and in works of history of early modern science.

Then cease your unconvincing name-dropping and quote from those primary writings.