Discussion about the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate

[morbo3000]

Thanks Rick for drawing attention to the Bill Nye v. Ken Ham debate tonight.

It can be viewed here, for now. I believe it will be archived at some time in the future. I'll repost a link if this one dies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI

I'd like to start talking about the debate by discussing how creationists use historical science v. observational science. I had never heard this distinction before.

I found this online.

Recognizing that everyone has presuppositions that shape the way they interpret the evidence is an important step in realizing that historical science is not equal to operational science. Because no one was there to witness the past (except God), we must interpret it based on a set of starting assumptions. Creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence; they just interpret it within a different framework. Evolution denies the role of God in the universe, and creation accepts His eyewitness account—the Bible—as the foundation for arriving at a correct understanding of the universe.

—Answers in Genesis, What Is Science?

My questions:
Is this an adequate definition?
Do you agree with this as a methodology?
Do you think it is a sound means for interpreting evidence?

[dseusy]

The whole thing probably gets circular because we, as subjective beings (shaped by circumstances outside our control and limited in our perspective as a result of our context and limited minds) cannot practice true science or objective historical interpretation. We couldn't 1,000 years ago when we documented history, and we can't now as we interpret these documentations or document ourselves. These limits should leave us, even in our limited reasoning , looking outside ourselves for truth and something to trust. Is there an objective authority? I believe the Bible fits the bill. So if we absorb this, and then look at evidence- we will find ourselves viewing with a new perspective- still limited, but not leaning on our own reason- I think this is the best we can do... the most sound means for interpreting evidence at our disposal. If a secular scientist thinks he can objectively interpret facts, he kids himself- because he himself is a slave to depravity and is unable to view objectively. If a "creation scientist" thinks he can objectively interpret facts, he kids himself too- but if He leans on the Bible, I'll bet my life that he gets a little closer to true science than the former.

We all have assumptions all the time. We can't help it... I think.