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

Thanks for the correction, Michael. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
To: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

>I am the first to argue that we should question deeply many/all aspects of
>science, and have a generally critical and questioning approach to many
>things. I hoped Gregory would see that if he wished to apply this to
>geological times we must also apply it to everything else. we soon get a
>point of absurdity.
>
> Perhaps one could say that there is a possibility that it is a young earth
> in principle but there have never been any arguments for it - all supposed
> ones are plain wrong, or arguments against an old earth. If anyone wants
> to hold such a possibility then they must give some arguments, otherwise
> it is just playing games. We can apply that to all scientific
> disciplines - and it is interesting that there is no questioning of the
> basis of most sciences.
>
> Surely in science there are degrees of certainty? As I tried to give on
> snowball earth.
>
> One little point Randy! I did not say " 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. "
>> but "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."
>
> What I was stressing is that a YE perspective has never been the assumed
> perspective. There were questions from 30ADS to 1500AD with some YE and
> Some OE and some instantaneous. It was only in the 16th century that YE
> became common but not unanimous but by 1620 that was dropped in favour of
> imprecision on age. in the 18th century few were committed to YE despite
> what most of today's writers say.As Rudwick argues in the latter part of
> the 18th century the argument was whether the earth was millions or
> possibly eternal or simply middle aged i.e 50-100000years old.
>
> Michael
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Randy Isaac" <randyisaac@comcast.net>
> To: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 6:43 PM
> Subject: 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.
>>
>

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 19:57:05 2007