It reminds me of the so called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution that some skeptics (/deniers) like to refer to but Biologists make no such distinction of course.
False Dichotomy: "Experimental/Operational" vs. "Historical/Origins" Science
Sort:
Well, not to be a contrarian, but that's actually a little different (and more complicated situation, too). Biologists actually do employ those terms, and were the first ones to use them. However, YECs misuse the terms ("micro" = small changes "within kinds"; "macro" = large changes "between kinds"). However, that is not the correct meaning of these terms. In evolutionary biology:
*Microevolution = change in allele (gene) frequency in a population over time
*Macroevolution = any change at or above the species level.
In it's simplest, most straightforward use:
*Macroevolution = Speciation
What YECs often fail to understand is that speciation (origin of a new species) does *not* require "large" changes. All one needs is reproductive isolation. If organisms in a population become unable to reproduce with the rest of the population (which we see all the time), then by definition it is a new species. New species will often look the same (at least, at first; but can diverge over time).
YECs will often dispute this and say "that's a small change, that's not a large macroevolutionary change," because they have an incorrect understanding of what macroevolution actually is.
In fact, that's what my post "YECs do NOT reject Speciation (Macroevolution)" is all about.
A common YEC false dichotomy is to try to divide science into two types: "Experimental/Operational Science" vs. "Historical/Origins Science," and then to argue along the lines of the following:
Of course, there is no such distinction in science, because it is a false distinction---a false dichotomy (And you actually *can* do experiments on the past----we do it all the time). So-called "historical sciences" are just as valid as so-called "operational/experimental sciences," and, in fact, employ experimental science every bit as much as "experimental sciences." "The Scientific Method" ingrained by education in students probably doesn't help the situation, because it gives people the wrong idea, when the truth is there is no "Scientific Method." Instead, scientists use multiples "Methods," plural. And the same is true with so-called "historical sciences." They are not limited to one method. Again, scientists employ multiple methods.
YECs also seem unaware of the nuances that exist. For example, YECs will often argue that "experimental" science is more reliable, because it's repeatable and can be verified in the here-and-now. But what they don't seem to realize is that those observations still *can't* actually be verified everywhere in the universe to see if those observations hold true in every situation, circumstance, and location in the universe. So "experimental" science still has to make assumptions when trying to generalize specific observations to the rest of nature (This is the well-known problem of *induction*).
So-called "historical sciences" actually have an advantage in this regard, because one is dealing with past events that are known to have happened, and that have left behind a record of evidence of those events. And that record of evidence can, in fact, be *experimentally* tested---*repeatedly*---and can be *experimentally* *verified* *repeatedly*. That's why this false dichotomy is such nonsense, because it is not a reflection of reality: so-called "historical sciences" employ "experimental science," too.
Science simply doesn't fall into 'neat' little categories like "experimental/operational" vs. "historical/origins" where one is confined to one type of method. Scientists employ multiple methods and any and all methods available to them.