Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

Hi Michael,

I obviously can't speak for Gregory, but I think I
know where he's coming from on this particular point.
I totally agree with you that science has gradations
of certainty, and that there are many things which are
so well-attested to through experimentation and
observation that we assume them to be true. However,
to say that there is "no possibility" or "total
certainty" seems to imply that not only are you taking
a given theory, law, etc. to be a true representation
of reality, but that you are not open to objectively
evaluating any new evidence that would challenge the
scientific "truth". I have always thought (in
principle at least) that as scientists we have an
obligation to leave open the possibility, however
extremely unlikely it is, that something we hold to be
true is wrong, or needs adjustment. Thus, I stated
that although I don't believe YEC will ever be
supported by science (and likewise, I hold evolution
to be largely "true" in a practical sense), that I
nevertheless remain open to evaluating any new
evidence that would say otherwise. Isn't this the very
essence of scientific inquiry?

Christine

--- Michael Roberts <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
wrote:

> Gregory
>
> I do not know what your standards are for
> convincing. You have raised doubt
> to an extreme artform in which discussion with
> anyone else is impossible.
> There are aspects of science which are beyond
> question, the age of the
> earth, heliocentricity, nuclear fission are just
> three. Others aspects of
> science have a higher probability of being wrong -
> global warming is one,
> though I am convinced it is happening, also snowball
> earth in the late
> Precambrian. On both of these there is a significant
> probability that they
> could be wrong, higher for snowball in fact..
>
> I would suggest that you argue with a bit more sense
> and give up your
> posturing of questioning. You have argued like this
> for a long time and
> simply do not want to listen to anyone who
> challenges your futile radical
> doubt.
>
> The sooner your realise that in science there is a
> gradation for total
> certainty (i.e. a scientific theory which is so well
> substantiated that it
> is beyond question, though it can be a good thing to
> look into its
> foundations as I did on geological ideas of time),
> through high probability,
> medium probability right down to what is little more
> than speculation with
> virtually no evidence to support it. Further
> evidence can either
> substantiate or weaken any theory.
>
> Thus if you consider Snowball earth there is now no
> question that the
> glacial sediments are a little older than the base
> of the Cambrian. That was
> demonstrated 100 years ago. In the 70s when I was
> working on some of them ,
> half of geologists reckoned they were not glacial,
> but came round. There
> could be a small question here. Now as for
> glaciation on all the globe this
> is more tentative and it seems a reasonable idea but
> could well be proved
> wrong.
>
> So on these three aspects of late Precambrian
> glaciation , there is no
> probability that they are not that age, a little
> probability that they are
> not glacial, and considerable probability that there
> was no Snowball earth.
>
> I hope all this gives some idea of probability in
> science
>
> Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregory Arago" <gregoryarago@yahoo.ca>
> To: "Michael Roberts"
> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Christine Smith"
>
> <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 10:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>
>
> > Thank you Michael for your answer, from a
> professional
> > geological perspective. As you are surely aware, I
> was
> > not suggesting that the earth is 'young.' Of
> course,
> > you were making sure that I was not and am not
> > suggesting that and now because of what I've just
> > written you are confirmed.
> >
> > That being said, you only addressed one part of a
> > three part question of mine that you quoted. The
> > 'young birth' and 'interventions' parts are also
> very
> > important for dialogue with YECs. Don't you agree?
> Is
> > it because they are not only geological or
> theological
> > questions that you refrained from offering an
> opinion?
> > Is it because they are much more difficult than
> the
> > age of earth question?
> >
> > "so we can say that there is no possibility that
> the
> > earth is young." - M. Roberts
> >
> > I disagree. We can say there is a very low
> > probability. We could even repeat 'very' several
> > times. But we cannot (read: should not) say 'no
> > possibility.' That would be excessive and there is
> no
> > need to be excessive and frankly, 'science' does
> not
> > pretend to that mantle. There are extra-geological
> > views that can impact our probabilities and
> > possibilities. We are all here who are discussing
> > these things humans, after all (except perhaps if
> > infiltrated by a chat-bot!).
> >
> > This reflects a similar grievance I take with
> > 'universal evolutionism.' It is just excessive and
> not
> > responsible to posit such a thing as 'science' or
> as
> > 'theology'.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Gregory
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Michael Roberts
> <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > > Christine, are you really asking how 'we'
> can
> >> > >
> >> > For example, as a geologist, Christine, is
> there
> >> ANY
> >> > possibility you would consider either a 'young'
> >> > earth,' a 'young' birth of Adam and Eve (within
> >> the
> >> > last 10,000 years) or a view of 'science' that
> >> > accomodates (or at least doesn't disqualify)
> >> > 'interventions' by (a) creator God in 'natural
> >> > processes'? In other words, are you 'closed' on
> >> the
> >> > viewpoint of an 'old' earth? Further, what are
> you
> >> > willing to do to either avoid or appease
> conflict?
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > G. Arago
> >>
> >> I will answer Gregory. A geologist as a scientist
> >> should have a questioning
> >> and quizzical attitude to the age of the earth
> and
> >> thus must be "open".
> >>
> >> One of the joys of doing the history of geology
> is
> >> that you can see how this
> >> open attitude worked itself out over 350 years or
> >> so. They began with a
> >> young earth - in an open way - as there was no
> >> evidence against it and by
> >> 1680 because of open minds many realised that the
> >> earth was older than young
> >> i.e 6000 years. The evidence convinced them.
> >>
> >> During the 18th century more evidence convinced
> >> these open minded geologists
> >> Christian or not and so by 1800 it was seen to be
> >> either 100000 yrs or so or
> >> even millions. By the 1820s when geology was
> >> dominated by devout clergy
> >> millions or "trillions" was the order of the day.
> >> (trillions from Conybeare
> >> an evangelical) In 1905 radioactivity was applied
> to
> >> dating coming up first
> >> with 2 billion and since 1946 the age has
> remained
> >> constant at 4.6 billion.
> >>
> >> So today can I or anyone else consider a young
> earth
> >> . Well theoretically
> >> YES, but there have to be good arguments that
> >> geologists have been wrong for
> >> the last 300odd years and good evidence put in
> its
> >> place. So far all the arguments against an old
> earth
> > and for a young earth have been shown too be
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Jul 1 18:12:15 2007