Observational Science Vs Historical Science

Science is capable of explaining and verifying many things, but it cannot explain or verify everything. The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia” which means “knowledge”. Science is the knowledge and study of facts in the natural world and the process of experimenting and observing the facts in order to draw generalized conclusions. Science is made up of the knowledge revealed to and discovered by mankind. This is why science cannot prove everything, because we do not know everything; scientist do not have all the answers they are simply guessing. When speaking of science, it is important to differentiate between observational science and historical science. Observational science is that which can be observed and tested …show more content…
Historical science is knowledge we exert concerning the past based on the observational remnants of the present. It is a belief that cannot be scientifically proven as it cannot be reproduced in the present. Put another way, we cannot make definitive conclusions concerning something that was only observable in the past. The origins of our universe is a great and much debated example of historical science. Both creationists and evolutionists must use historical science when theorizing on our origins. However, evolution is taught today as observational science; an observable proven fact. Ken Ham, a christian scientist and creationist, explains this problem, and the limitations of historical science, in his book The Lie, “Most people have the wrong idea about what the creation/evolution/age of the earth questions involve. Instead of perceiving the real issue, they have been deceived into believing that evolution/millions of years is science and that the Bible’s account of origins is religion. But this is not so...There is a big difference between knowledge gained by observation(ie the knowledge that helps to build our technology) and …show more content…
It is because of the frightening thought that we as individuals can never truly know everything there is to know about the universe and the world we live in. If we as individuals cannot know everything, we would feel safer if at least some person out there did. Then that person could make the more informed, correct decisions in regards to important matters. This wish to believe that someone in the world knows “everything” is what helps to fuel the false belief that “Science can prove anything.” Scientist may not come right out and say it, but if they present their theories and hypothesis in a manner intended to convince the general public, without first cautioning the possible fallibility of their statements, the scientist are, in essences, pretending to know it all. It is vital to remember that scientist are fallible human beings just like us, they are not some unbiased enlightened people in white coats. Science, the ability to know from observation, is limited. Therefore, if individuals believe that scientific claims are conclusive, they will construct pillars of fake laws and a foundation of fabrication which will crumble future generations. In a place and time where many individuals take the word of scientists as law, we must be careful to remember this fact. We cannot assume that because a teacher or scientist or uses the statement “science