[.. Therefore, whenever the conclusions of the historical sciences conflict with the words of God, the only eyewitness of the creation events, we must reject the former in favor of the latter.
Perhaps
if there was such a thing.
Because Science cannot re-test past events.
The scientific method can predict the outcome
of future events by documenting current events
and this allows hostile researchers to re-create
the conditions of the original documented
observations and confirm that the original
observations were legitimate.
There is no such thing as "Historical Science".
If ther were, then you would have a point to consider.
What you are referring to is not "Science".
It is Historical Science Fiction.
But let's not talk about theories of what happened in
the
beginning of time. Let us talk about yesterday afternoon
to see how well science fictions hold up.
1. "The scientific method, a time-honored approach for discovering and testing
scientific truth, does not and cannot work for the forensic sciences in its
standard form because it does not work for past events.
Past events cannot
be observed, cannot be predicted or deduced from physical evidence, and
cannot be tested experimentally. "
2.
Forensic Tools: What’s Reliable and What’s Not-So-Scientific
3.
CSI Myths: The Shaky Science Behind Forensics
Here is a similar argument oddly silent by people who stand to loose
legitimacy in their given occupation:
"Higher Criticism may be called a science, though its processes and results do not admit of
nicety of control and demonstration,
as its principles are of the moral-psychological order. Hence its conclusions, even in the most favorable circumstances,
attain to no greater force than what arises from a convergence of probabilities, begetting a moral conviction."
Interesting that the "Historical Sciences" (no such thing) do not confess the lack of "
nicety of control and demonstration."
