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

"I would suggest that you argue with a bit more sense
and give up your posturing of questioning." - Michael
Roberts

Michael, 'sense' is a relative term - your sense is
relative to you and your geological and theological
community more than it is to others outside of those
communities. Your message to me below is undignified
(and also rather basic) and I see no need to respond
to it. Of course you don't know what my standards are,
but you do nothing to take a step to find out about
them either! I do not wish to be stuck in your box of
preconceptions.

In any case, Christine has stated her position (which
on this occasion I fully agree with...and she's a
geologist too!) and asked her question more delicately
than I:

"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?"

Perhaps Michael could respond to Christine and her
natural science position rather than to me and my
sociological position?

g.a.

--- 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

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 2 17:08:36 2007