Part of how we learn about the past is how things work in the present and what's possible in the present, so the distinction between historical and observational science is not nearly as strong as the article implies.
There is ample fossil and other evidence for Evolution. Creationists don't accept that evidence, but they basically admit they will never accept any fossil evidence as valid, so what they think doesn't really matter.
Morality and natural laws built around what a god says wouldn't really be absolute because then presumably the god could change the laws at will.
Lastly, Answers in Genesis openly says it interprets evidence while assuming the Bible's accounts are true. That destroys their credibility.
reply
share