- Why is history not science? Science is simply ‘what we know’. Or extended, it is ‘the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained’. Hard sciences require repeat verifications. They are not perfect as they have indirect observation, accuracy, and interpretation issues. Still, they are the closest thing to true knowledge (science). In contrast, history is an unverifiable model of the past because it cannot be rerun, observed, experimented and tested. At most, history can employ scientific techniques to show compatibility with science.
- Are then archaeology, paleontology, etc. not sciences? Not entirely. To the extent their claims can be verified experimentally, yes. Anything else is not science. For instance, “artifact X is associated with rock formation Y” is science because we can see experimentally the association. Whereas, “M hominid is the ancestor of the N hominid” is not science because there is no experiment we can do to verify that assertion. Note that one is about the present (verifiable) whereas the other is about the past (unverifiable).
- How can one verify the past? It is impossible. Maybe it was written down? But no experiment can prove the authenticity. Maybe it is remembered collectively. But mass delusions have been recorded. Artifacts can be misinterpreted as can be the traces of past natural events. Experimental proof is not possible as history cannot be rerun. History may be partially verified against inconsistencies. However, the stories told cannot be easily assigned a scientific probability. And even if that were possible, story craftsmanship ranks much higher than its probable veracity.
- All history is not the same. Even if history is not science, recent history is easier to falsify, hence more reliable when not falsified. More records, hopefully uncorrelated, are generally available for the recent history than for the deep past. They may include writing, artifacts, biology, tree rings, ice layers, geologic strata, fossils, radioactive decay, compatibility models, etc. The older the event, the fewer verification methods can be employed. Oldest written records are from 5500 years ago, oldest drawings from 45000 years ago, oldest tree rings are 4900 years old. Also, the relevance of various techniques is limited. They only provide a very narrow view. For instance, tree rings may be affected by the climate, but it is hard if not impossible to know what exact climate part is responsible. And they cannot say anything about the other organisms of that era or about cosmology for instance. Relative dating and radioactive decay, both complemented by a number of critical yet unverifiable assumptions are just about the only methods to probe the remote past.
- The ultimate “absolute” time measurement is by nuclear decay – a genuine misunderstood miracle given we cannot predict the decay rate of any particular isotope without prior observations. We also cannot explain why isotopes of the same element vary so much from one another. We cannot explain the exponential function. This decay rate is assumed constant and unaffected by any environmental factors. Yet induced nuclear reactions as in nuclear explosions greatly accelerate natural decays. Radiometric dating relies on a very superficial grasp of this miracle, extrapolated carelessly to the infinite past. This overreliance on something so poorly understood is unwarranted.
- “Evolution” is just a model of the biologic past. All “evolutionary” claims are unverifiable stories about the past. And since history is not science, no “evolutionary” story can possibly be scientific. Proponents like to say “evolution” predicts this or that past event. However, prediction can only be about the future. At best, those claims are ‘inference’, not ‘predictions’. And those inferences are misattributed to “evolution” when in fact “evolution” plays no role. For example, Xanthopan morganii praedicta – Latin for ‘predicted moth’, was hypothesized solely on the observation that flowers need pollinators. No “evolution” was required. Predicted fossil discoveries such as the Tiktaalik are in reality, mostly if not all, post-fact explanations or interpretations and, to the extent they are at all real predictions, they are based on the known fossil patterns and not on the theory of “evolution” that claims no specific fossils.
- For “evolution” to be true, it must be verified experimentally here and now. This can be done partially by observing if its tenets are uphold or not. Is gradualism happening here and now? Divergence of character? Fitness? Niches? Natural selection? Drift? Speciation? Metamorphosis via allele frequency change? The answer is NO to each one of those. We do not observe any of these here and now. Therefore they could not have happened in the past either. Given no “evolution” here and now, evolutionists always default to stories about the deep past. And when they inevitably do so, they must be stopped immediately: “History is not science, therefore your theory is unscientific!”
- How old is the Earth? The Universe? We will never know because history is not science. The YEC (Young Earth Creation) model assumptions include: the Bible true, Genesis days of 24 current hours, God’s power to shape and re-shape the universe with no constraints, and nothing extra to the biblical genealogy. The Old Earth model main assumptions are: Big Bang, a subsequent linear (or at least 2-nd order linear) expansion, constant laws of physics, naturalism, etc. Yet not one experiment conducted today can confirm any of these assumptions. Earth’s age is and will always remain a matter of personal belief.
Pro-Con Notes:
Con: We understand radioactive decay. Decay rates have always been constant.
Pro: Explain then why one isotope has a different decay rate of another of the same element. I give you an isotope. Can you calculate its decay rate without lookup tables? Can you explain what exactly prevents decay rates from changing? What law of physics would be violated by a changing decay rate and why?
Con: If you accelerated a billion years of decay into 6,000 years, the resulting heat and radioactivity would turn this planet into a dry, scorched, lifeless cinder.
Pro: Who said the rest of the “universe evolution” model is true? Remember, history is not science. Therefore the current state of the universe tells us nothing about the past. Numerous models of “universe evolution” are compatible with the current state.