> Let me pin you down on this. I've never done any formal research in the
>Grand Canyon area (I wish I could!) although I have taught the "standard"
>geologic model regarding the rock units present there. Can you steer me
toward a couple of what you consider to be the best pieces of published
research (I'm not even going to ask that they be in a maistream journal)
regarding strong evidence for a few thousand year old flood resulting in
strata present within the Canyon? I'd be more than happy to read those
papers.
Sure. Maybe we could take you with us sometime. For the Tapeats, may I
modestly recommend "A Reassessment ofthe shallow water Depositional Model
for the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona: Evidence for deep water
deposition" Kennedy and Chadwick GSA Abstracts with Programs 28:A-407
1996; Kennedy, Kablanow and Chadwick: "Evidence for Deep Water Deposition
of the Tapeats Sandstone, Grand Canyon, Arizona" in van Riper, C.,III and
E. T. Deschler, eds. 1997 Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference on
Research on the Colorado Plateau. National Park Service Transactions and
Proceedings Series NPS/NRNAU/NRTP-97/12. pp215-228. We are also presenting
a paper at the International Sedimentological Congress in Alacante, Spain
in April which will deal with a suite of additional data, and should be
available sometime this month.
For the Coconino, Leonard Brand has numerous publications on his work
there, but for starters, you can try the following:
Brand., L. R. 1979. Field and laboratory studies on the Coconino Sandstone
(Permian) fossil vertebrate footprints and their paleoecological
implications. Palaeogeog. Palaeoclimat. Palaeoecol., 28:25-38. (Reprinted
in Benchmark Papers in Geology)
Brand, L.R. and T. Tang. 1991. Fossil vertebrate footprints in the Coconino
Sandstone [Permian] of northern Arizona: evidence for underwater origin.
Geology, 19:1201-1204. Commentaries on this paper were published in:
Science News, 141 (4):5, 1992; Geology Today, 8 (3):78-79, 1992; and
Nature, 355:110, 9 Jan., 1992.
Brand, L. R. 1992. Reply to comments on "fossil vertebrate footprints in
the Coconino Sandstone (Permian) of northern Arizona: evidence for
underwater origin." Geology, 20:668-670.
Brand, L. R. 1996. Variations in salamander trackways resulting from
substrate differences. Jour. of Paleontol., 70:1004-1010.
Brand, L.R., and J. Kramer. 1996. Underprints of vertebrate and
invertebrate trackways in the Permian Coconino Sandstone in Arizona.
Ichnos, 4:225-230.
> As I've discussed with others before, I find it very difficult to see
>exactly how one does non-naturalistic science since the conclusions would
>seem to vary from person to person if they had different religious or
>philosophical beliefs about what they were studying. At least
naturalistic >science is consistent from one individual to another. Some
form of theistic >science could well vary from Protestant to Catholic to
7th Day Adventist to >Hindu to Buddhist etc.
Remember, science is an enterprise of the community, and as long as the
work is done as science, and is reproducible and subjected to peer review,
it doesn't really matter where the idea came from. There is no such thing
as non-naturalistic "science", so that is not a problem when you are doing
science. However your paradigm is always non-naturalistic (even if your
paradigm IS naturalism). If the idea correctly predicts the outcome of
untried experiments, then it becomes a good idea. That doesn't mean it
will be accepted by the community, though.
> Sorry, it was a generic "you". I agree about the paradigms but I would
>argue that one based on one's interpretation of Scripture is far more
>subjective and unreliable than one based on naturalism which, for all it's
>faults, seems to work.
and I would argue that as long as the ideas are subjected to the rigors of
scientific investigation, it doesn't matter where the ideas come from. If,
as you suggest, naturalism is a better approach to the natural world, it
will succeed on the force of its own ability. Survival of the Fittest does
indeed work at this level.
> I don't believe science can address all there is. I do not see, however,
>how one can reliably investigate the natural world without using
methodological
>naturalism.
I agree, so long as you would agree to the following modification: "I do
not see, however, how one can reliably investigate the natural world 'USING
THE METHODS OF SCIENCE' without using methodological naturalism.