History should have been a scientific disciple. Experimental science (i.e. science done with test tubes) does not and cannot know what happened in the past, it can only offer a view whether or not a theory is likely. The only way of knowing about the past is to ask people who were there. A scientist at a crime scene cannot say what happened; the forensic science process works because a detective finds witnesses and then works out a probable account of events. Only then does the detective call in the forensic scientist.  The scientist analyses the crime scene, looking for clues that prove the witnesses and detectives’ theories are right.

​

The laws of evidence used across the Western World for two hundred years or more have consistently shown that where two eye witness accounts of the same event occur and when each person recorded slightly differing details both accounts are true.  Details may overlap but they never exactly match because each person remembered different aspects and recording the details they might have even made mistakes and errors may exist but that doesn’t nullify the account.  They won't however be a perfect match; if they were, then collusion took place and neither was independent.

 

The same is true with history. We have written accounts from the past and scientific enquiry from many disciples can analyse these accounts and determine their veracity, or otherwise. The Epic of Gilgamesh is a good example, we know this account comes from about 2400 BC; The Biblical account of the flood gives a timeline placing the same event at 2370 BC, exactly the same place on the timeline. The Gilgamesh Epic was written independently of the Biblical account yet both detail the same event.

​​​

The Epic of Gilgamesh is eerily similar to the biblical account of the flood. Many details in one confirm the other, yet in no way was one a copy of the other.  They were written by two different people, who didn’t know each other; two people recording the same facts, not two people copying each other.​​​​​​​​​