Realizing that some my thinking is as much a mystery to you as some of yours is to me, let me explain how I understand some of these terms.
For me, the difference between science and history is simple and clear: science tries to explain what happens while history documents what happened.
Now, a little more about history. Somewhere in my education I was taught the definition I just gave you. Another way of saying it is that history is what happened that got written down. Thus what is pre-historic is what happened before things were written down. However, many people today use the term history more loosely: just what happened (whether it was written down or not). This is the way I have used the word throughout my posting on this topic. I’ve felt a little sloppy doing so, but it seems to be the way most people use the term today, and even the first definition Google gives for history doesn’t mention writing. Therefore, I’ve chosen to just go along with the way most people today seem to define history.
One point of agreement between evolution and more traditional interpretations of Genesis is that humans are latecomers to the universe. That being the case, humans cannot bear witness to anything created before them. There are, therefore, only two ways I can think of that they can know about pre-human times: God can reveal it to them or through science they can speculate on what it must have been like - that is, divine revelation or human speculation.
It may seem to you that I am using the word speculation in a pejorative sense but I am not. Scientists can be so confident of their speculation, coming as it does from multiple and independent lines of evidence, that they can conclude evolution to be true in the same way that most people don’t need eyewitness testimony to believe that O. J. did it.
The question then becomes, and the question for me in this topic discussion has consistently been, how then does one reconcile this confidence with divine revelation (i.e. what the Bible at least seems to be saying).