Bill Nye vs Ken Ham debate – some comments

Bill Nye repeatedly claimed that creationists ignore the operation of “natural laws” in the past. He seemed to claim this was part of the definition of “historical science.

Facts:


1. Ken Ham (nor any creationist I know of) has never stated that “natural laws” did not operate in the past.


2. Ham did correctly make the distinction between operational and historical science, which is acknowledge by secular science as well.


3. Ham documented this by quoting from the book: Earth Science (Indiana Teacher’s Edition) (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006), pp.2-3
In contrast to physical geology, the aim of historical geology is to understand Earth’s long history.
Historical geology tries to establish a timeline of the vast number of physical and biological changes that have occurred in the past.. We study physical geology before historical geology because we must first understand how Earth works before we try to unravel its past.


4. “Historical science” is further explained by eminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr:
Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.