Historical Science and Secular Rescuing Devices

Although they typical denizen of social media with atheism spectrum disorder pretends that the distinction between historical and operational science was invented by biblical creationists for the purpose of deceiving people into believing in our holy and righteous Creator, that is the opposite of the truth.

Some evolutionists try to make historical science equal to operational science, then confuse the issues with bad logic.
Credit: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Historical science is forensic by nature, attempting to reconstruct events of the past with tools and procedures available in the present. However, it is mighty difficult to falsify things like, say, the origin of the universe or fish-to-forensic anthropologist evolution. A principle of science is that something must be falsifiable. Science doesn't prove anything so much as find reasons to accept ideas. Ideally, if a theory is shown to have exceptions or errors, then it has been falsified and something new is added to the mix. Sometimes the postulate is entirely discarded.

While evolutionists know not only the distinctions between historical and operational science, but they also realize the problems inherent in historical science and falsifiability. Jaspers like Carol Cleland attempt to blur the lines between the two forms of science, but use poor logic (even contradicting herself) and arbitrary assertions. Interestingly, there are some points that biblical creationists agree with, but her obfuscation for the sake of evolution is not good for the true spirit of scientific inquiry.
The important debate over scientific methodology must address the distinction between present and past. One recent idea proposes two realms of science: operational science and historical science. Because historical science addresses hypotheses not open to verification through experimentation, creation scientists have argued that historical science is subordinate to both Scripture and the testable, repeatable results of operational science. Some Darwinists assert that historical science should be considered equal to operational science, such as prominent philosopher of science Dr Carol Cleland. Her arguments will be examined and refuted, while the use of the terminology in question will be explained and defended.
To learn more of what this is all about, head over to "Examining the usage and scope of historical science—a response to Dr Carol Cleland and a defence of terminology".