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

Moorad,
    I know we've discussed this many times before and we may not make any
more progress this time either. But "history/forensic nature type" doesn't
change anything about the nature of knowledge. The only distinction between
"historical" sciences and other sciences is that we may never be able to get
all the data we would like and may not be able to reproduce at will an event
like the formation of the earth. But the basic principles of scientific
endeavor are still valid and relevant and to the extent we have the data,
the conclusions are as valid as any other.

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>; <randyisaac@comcast.net>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

> Let us not forget that regardless all the scientific knowledge needed and
> used to address the questions you raise, still there is an element of
> history that makes your question all of the forensic nature type. I do
> agree that the most one can do is "beyond a reasonable doubt." However,
> recall that we really do not know if O. J. did it or not although he was
> found not guilty.
>
>
> Moorad
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Dawsonzhu@aol.com
> Sent: Tue 7/3/2007 4:15 PM
> To: randyisaac@comcast.net; asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?
>
>
> Randy wrote:
> 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.
>
> I strongly agree. However, as I think I have said before; a good
> scientist
> must learn to keep that humility switch set to the on position __all the
> time__.
>
> I have absolutely no idea of any way to reconcile the 6000 year old earth
> with
> 24/6 day creation paradigm with anything that I have studied in geology,
> or biology, let alone what I know as a physicist. I have yet to encounter
> even a shred of evidence in science that could even put an iota of ground
> to the YEC view.
>
> Yet, for all the effort I have put into the matter, everything I have
> touched,
> everything I have probed, everything I have pondered, and all the
> information
> I have learned from others who have done the same, I (indeed we) still
> could
> have missed something.
>
> The only criteria that we have is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and there,
> quite clearly, YEC fails the test.
>
> Does the earth seem to be old from the best effort we can put forth to
> examine it?
> Yes.
>
> Does evolution appear to be the best way to explain the scientific
> evidence in
> biology? Moreover, does it largely corroborate with the geology record.
> Again
> a strong yes.
>
> Does astronomy agree with an old universe and is behavior of the universe
> uniform over all measurable time for which we have data? Moreover, is it
> consistent with chemistry and physics of the world we know. Again yes.
>
> Do we achieve a consistent picture of the world from all these different
> stand
> points as far as we can discern? Yes.
>
> With all corroborating information. this data, could I still be wrong?
> Well,
> it seems pretty doubtful, and I doubt I will lose any sleep over it, but
> in fact,
> yes.
>
> So, though it is quite unlikely we have missed something, I think it is
> important
> to keep that humility switch always set to "on". At least then, we can
> sincerely
> stand before the Lord and say we really did our best. Our faith and
> faithfulness
> is what we most need to work on and what seems the most important to good
> science too.
>
> By Grace we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
>
> 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 nonscientific 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 20:11:04 2007