Re: facts (was Re: Student perceptions re evolution)

From: Jay Willingham (jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:01:18 EDT

  • Next message: Jay Willingham: "Re: Student perceptions re evolution"

    I do not class the big bang and evolution as theories, just as fascinating
    hypotheses. The big bang is very interesting because if God did create
    time, matter and energy in 7 days, that would be an incredibly dynamic
    event.

    I also think biblical timelines based on assumed generational length are
    hypothetical, given the ancients predilection to telescope genealogies, such
    as saying the Jews are "Sons of Abraham".

    I agree with your statement:

    "ALL scientific "facts" involve some theory. There are no strictly "raw
    data."
    Even the simple statement that an object is at a certain position involves
    theories of
     light propagation &c."

    That is the key, to realize that even our most sophisticated perception
    devices see from within creation through a dark prism that the father of
    lies can manipulate.

    So, too, can the Lord inspire.

    That in mind, the search for knowledge, science, is a holy quest.

    Jay

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
    To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
    Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
    Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:33 AM
    Subject: facts (was Re: Student perceptions re evolution)

    > Jay Willingham wrote:
    > >
    > > Exactly.
    > >
    > > It is declaring as fact the hypothetical interpretation of daisy-chained
    > > facts that is the root of the problem.
    > >
    > > Gene interpretation is not so firm a fact as the existence of fossils
    and
    > > the Grand Canyon.
    >
    > ALL scientific "facts" involve some theory. There are no strictly "raw
    data."
    > Even the simple statement that an object is at a certain position involves
    theories of
    > light propagation &c.
    >
    > Our knowledge about the distant past of the earth or of the universe of
    course
    > also involves theories. The question is whether these are well-tested
    scientific
    > theories, untested speculations, or philosophical & religious
    presuppositions disguised
    > as scientific theories - or some combination thereof. The phrase "daisy
    chained facts"
    > seems to be used pejoratively above, but I would certainly prefer a
    concatenation of
    > well-tested theories & observations that concludes that the MWB was
    emitted ~14 x 10^9
    > years ago to a "simple" claim that anything we see is less than 10^4 years
    old because
    > that's what one interpretation of Genesis says.
    >
    > But to the argument that scientific "facts" like the big bang or evolution
    don't
    > have to be accepted because they involve theories, the only necessary
    response is "So's
    > your old man." Claims that life didn't evolve or that the big bang didn't
    happen also
    > involve theory.
    >
    > Shalom,
    > George
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > George L. Murphy
    > gmurphy@raex.com
    > http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    >
    >



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 12:02:41 EDT