The YEC Distinction Between Operational and Historical Science Is Not Recognized And Is Wrong 100,001 Times Over

Conversation
1

What is this, taken from Fossil Butte in Wyoming? The likely answer is a fossil fish, and why is this even a question? However, was that answer a matter of observational science, historical science, or is that a invalid distinction to begin with, abused by creationists to allow for their untethered fabrications to be presented as equal alternatives to scientific rigor?

Fish Fossil 2
Fish Fossil 2650×321 15.3 KB

What seems obvious now was by no means as self-apparent to prior generations. From Aristotle to the 1600’s, the dominant opinion was that these were never alive but were impressions made in the earth for various reasons, given that fish do not swim in rock and trees do not grow deep underground. English naturalist John Ray in 1692 was the first to argue with vigor that everything in nature exists for a reason and purpose, and so fossils would not be pointless buried reliefs.

Nature makes nothing in vain. But these teeth, were they just formed in the Earth, would be in vain; for they could not have any use of teeth… Nature never made teeth without a Jaw, nor Shells without an Animal inhabitant, nor single Bones.

Others added their reasons for fossils having once been alive, and few today would even recall there was ever any dissent. So is that observational or historical science, or is that an altogether spurious question? How do you know that was a living fish, after all, were you there? Perhaps you are just believing what you have been taught by vain and arrogant scientists who proclaim that such a fossil was once a living fish, afraid to express their real doubts and risk their careers. Most people, though, would be on team fossil, and would reply that they know a fish when they see it.

Life leaves its impression upon the earth, documenting its existence by a record of fossils, remains, minerals, and incorporating the chemical and isotopic composition of environmental ingredients. Much more than an impression is observed and analyzed. Just as important, the matrix by which a fossil is formed also offers troves of observable information spanning the granular to the formation as a whole. From the imprint to isotopic analysis, it is all observational science.

5 Likes
2

Yes, even “operational science” includes inferring past events from the evidence. Arguably that is the only way to understand any event - direct perception is a myth.

All it comes down to is the quantity and quality of evidence - there is no fundamental difference. But the whole point is to dismiss the evidence because it goes so firmly against the YEC dogma.

5 Likes
3

Creationists much prefer lolling in pointless rhetoric to practically evaluating evidence or advancing knowledge. This is because in their hostile war on science, they need to relocate the battle to the ground of their choosing. Given that discussion of historical science will elicit a shrug or a yawn in most quarters, why is it that there are so many impassioned or adamant articles across YEC sites? They do not hide their explicitly ulterior motive, with the goal of deflecting from evidence and measurement, and legitimizing their amalgam of apologetic philosophy and theology.

Safarti states “Normal (operational) science deals only with repeatable observable processes in the present”, thus relegating counting tree rings to abnormal science.

Doyle reinforces the dogmatic theme,

The difference between evolutionary origins science and creationist origins science is that creationists realize the historical nature of the questions, and therefore turn to a historical text—i.e. Scripture—to inform them about what sort of big historical events may have caused what we see today.

and Reed and Clevburg argue that natural history should incorporate “truth from science, history, philosophy, and theology.”

As @UncensoredPilgrims Price broadens this to write, "Neither experimental nor historical science are of much value without Scripture", so that recognizing a fish fossil is as much a matter of exegesis.

So the calculated agenda is to put a finger under the scale so that the balance of evidence is always outweighed by YEC dogma, but to retain a veneer of science to suit apologetic evangelism. In the mind of creationists, all they have to do is come up with a story, any story, no matter how strained, absurd, or utterly lacking in evidence, and with their dogma on the scale, the odds are ever in their favor, because when they speak of historical science, it is scripture that defines the history.

4

You can post your dishonest denialism all you want, I’ve already proved my point. You can go find my writings on the topic where I document the usage of this distinction by modern non-YEC philosopher of science Carol Cleland in her writings, and the distinction goes back as far as the 1930s. But even in an imaginary world where YECs did come up with this distinction out of whole cloth, so much the better! It would be to our credit if we had. This is a very clear, obvious distinction that any intellectually honest person should be making between science that is directly testable and repeatable, and science that isn’t. Operational and historical science.

Clearly this touches a nerve or you wouldn’t feel the need to keep bringing it up.