So far as I know, nobody but traditionalist Christians use that term "historical sciences" in any argumentative sense -- as if "historical science" is somehow less "scientific" than what you call "operational science".
By using that term, you reveal your pose as "philosopher" is false, and in reality, you are here to promote your own religious ideas of Creationism.
microgood: "Outside of Physics and Biology, the rest of the sciences operate in a different level of believability."
Actually, if you think about it, your so-called "historical sciences" are the same type of science as forensic science, which is used in courtrooms every day as proof of innocence or guilt, to convict or set free defendants, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Of course, science itself never uses such terms as "proof" or "conviction", but juries of ordinary human beings do, and they do it based on those same "historical sciences" which you are here to proclaim as "junk science."
So, let me say this yet again: you are absolutely entitled to believe whatsoever you wish to believe about the past -- whatever your scriptures tell you, howsoever your faith interprets them, you can believe it... provided, provided you do not call those beliefs "science".
They are not, and you should not pretend they are.
By definition, your faith is outside, above and beyond all science -- always was, is now and always will be.
By the way, I put the Big Bang theory in the same category as other “historical sciences” like evolution, archeology, paleontology, etc. It has the same issues as all other sciences that try to explain the past.