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

Christine, you've already received several good responses such as Dave on
the philosophical side and George on the scientific side. The issue is so
important I'd like to add a few more comments.

One of the issues here is communication and education. Too often scientists
are viewed as arrogant and unreceptive by a non-scientific audience when
making claims about what we know. We can learn a lot about better ways to
communicate what we mean.

There's also a danger in saying that we need to keep open the possibility,
however small, of a concept such as a young earth. This is necessary
presumably to convey openness to new ideas. But this idea of gradations of
certainty must be handled with care.

The IPCC approach is a classic in cautious statistical probability branding.
This is necessary, at least to some degree, when the issue is a theory that
is inherently statistical in nature and we're predicting the future path of
a complex system with uncertain statistically random forcing. Many other
physical aspects are not statistical in nature and we can't so easily apply
a probability to them.

I recently gave a short talk on "how to be a skeptic in science". Yes,
healthy skepticism is a vital part of the scientific process. However, that
skepticism itself must be validated through scientific methodology.
Furthermore, the more mature and robust the concept, the higher the hurdle
that the skepticism must clear.

In the case of the age of the earth, Michael pointed out how a young earth
was the assumed perspective until the latter part of the 18th century. When
tested against data, this hypothesis was questioned and eventually the
weight of evidence from so many different angles made it clear that the
young-earth hypothesis was not an accurate interpretation of the data.
Today, the remaining uncertainty in the age of the earth is the precision.
The value of 4.5Billion years is more appropriate than 4.500Billion years.
The uncertainty is on the order of a hundred million years. Maybe a little
more, maybe a little less. But the uncertainty is not a factor of 2, let
alone six orders of magnitude. To assert there is a possibility that it is
wrong by this amount requires the assertion that a very very large number of
oft-validated scientific principles and myriad diverse data sets are wrong.
Citing this as an open possibility is not a reflection of healthy
skepticism.

By the way, in my talk I ended up claiming that, as far as I could tell,
there has been no case where a scientific theory which has been validated by
data from many independent sources and which is accepted as consensus by the
mainstream community, has been later invalidated. I'd love to hear of any
examples that any of you might think of.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christine Smith" <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 6:11 PM
Subject: 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

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 3 13:43:59 2007