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.
—Answers in Genesis, What Is Science?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.
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?