In the "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Their theories are subject to empirical tests, observations and falsification attempts (Popper.) Indeed, the more attempts to falsify a theory that are made and fail - the more confident we are in the theory.
Well, I have to say that this is the first time I've ever seen this supposed demarkation made between "historical" sciences and "hard" sciences. Biology most certainly is a real-time science, and I'm fairly certain that most people would consider my specialty, biochemistry, as a hard science. The study of evolution and evolutionary relationships is as subject to empirical tests, observation, and falsification as any physics experimentation. Evolutionary biologists simply cannot escape the absolute requirement to formulate hypotheses and their companion null hypotheses. And there is a strong mathematical component to the biological sciences.
In any case, I don't jump into literal creation threads to debate the science; literal creationists do not, as far as I can tell, care about the science, and will always come up with another unscientific objection no matter how much evidence is presented, making discussing the science nearly impossible.
I jump in because I don't like to see people defaming and denigrating scientists for having chosen science as a career. As far as the anti-science is concerned, I really don't care; literal creationism doesn't kill people like some other forms of anti-science, and it's unlikely that literal creationists will ever be making policy decisions about the funding of scientific inquiry. Just stay away from demonizing scientists for being scientists.
As far as I know, none of us are anti-science. And to whatever extent we are anti-scientIST, we direct our indignation towards individual scientists who have been promoting their own political or ideological agenda under the color of science. Chief among these are the Eugenicists (the topic of this thread) and such "scientists" as Dawkins, Pinker, Singer and Lewontin.
In my view, mainstream scientists ought to be just as indignant about such abuses as we are. Science should be about gaining knowledge not political/ideological power.
Also, any person who believes in The Creator of "all that there is" is a Creationist - as YHAOS has tried to explain. Within that belief there are many different understandings of God's revelations both in Scripture and in nature.
There are fewer than 40 sentences in Genesis 1 versus myriad research material in libraries around the world concerning the physical world around us. We Creationists have many ways of viewing the one in the light of the other.
We are not all "Young Earth Creationists."
I for instance consider myself both YEC and OEC. There may be not a single other Christian on this forum who agrees with me. And that does not matter.
My views are much closer to those of Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder though obviously I would not agree with him on everything. He is Jewish, I am Christian.
Nevertheless, like Dr. Schroeder, I keep Relativity and Inflationary Theory in mind while reading Genesis.
For instance, here we are rocketing through space at over 500,000 miles per hour and yet we cannot sense it. Neither can we sense relativistic time - that a week from our present space/time coordinates is equal to an equivalent 15 billion years from the inception space/time coordinates. Nor can we sense the proportion of cosmos to quantum.
In our view, there is no conflict whatsoever between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 - or between Scripture and the physical evidence we see in nature.
Further, I perceive Genesis describing the creation of both spiritual and physical, heaven and earth - from God's perspective not man's. The Creator was the only observer of Creation.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. - Revelation 2:7
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. - Hebrews 11:3
And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died. Genesis 5:5
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 2 Peter 3:8
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ. - Colossians 2:16-17
But it doesn't matter to me at all if no one here agrees with my understanding of the matter. Even so, I am a Creationist. And I am not anti-science.
God's Name is I AM.
I'm thinking that you are using a definition of 'empirical' that allows plenty of room for imposing philosophical beliefs on the results.
As opposed to "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine."
Those who control the meaning of terms, control the debate.