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

Randy,

I came here in order to learn something about the broad spectrum of
Christian views by ASA members. But, as you told me over the phone, only
about 10% of the list are ASA members. Since I don't know who is a member
and who isn't it seems difficult to ascertain the views of such members as
opposed to non-members. On the internet there are plenty of places for the
public to bicker over such issues. But there seems to be no place for ASA
members to just chat with other ASA members. I suspect that kind of
intramural chat would perhaps be contentuous enough but at least it would
(hypothetically) be grounded in a common value system. But if there is a
common value system between ASA members and general members of the public I
haven't been able to detect it. When someone asks a question about what
can be offered to YEC-ers, the first question I have is "by whom"? ASA
members can ask themselves that sort of question, and it may be possible for
them to formulate an answer, but it isn't possible for non-ASA members to
answer it in that context.
One could even argue that input from non-members is just noise in a
conversation by members who are considering such a question. Consider
asking the question "What can the ASA offer YEC" in an [lets pick a group at
random...lets see, its tuesday so lets pick Islam)...continuing on.....]
ok, an islamic chat list, and then letting mostly muslims who are not ASA
members debate and come up with the answer. How representative would it be
of the ASA? It might have some value, but it doesn't answer for the ASA.
Only the ASA can converge on that answer. How to expedite convergence? Is
convergence desirable? Is understanding desirable? How does one begin to
understand the ASA? Is being on the list part of a way to understand the
ASA? I'm having great difficulty with that. What I have learned mostly,
so far, is two things: one is that non-ASA members constantly criticize and
bicker with ASA members, and second there are a lot of really nice folks,
some who are ASA members, who now email me privately. The latter (almost,
but not quite) makes up for the former.

On 7/3/07, Randy Isaac <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

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 19:13:35 2007