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

Good ones, Jim. That's the kind of examples I was looking for.

The "pre-Einstein physics" example is too general to get my teeth into.
George already mentioned that much of such physics wasn't invalidated but
shown to be of limited scope.

I'm interesting in the Bohr model example. That's a good one. For the
historians here: to what extent was the Bohr model a community-wide
consensus with data verification that distinguished it from all other
models? How soon was it shown to be inaccurate? Note that the Bohr model is
still taught, partially because it's such a good illustration of the atom
that people can comprehend it and partially because the nature of its error
is very educational.

I'm not familiar with early cell models. Which ones were validated by data
and then shown to be wrong (as opposed to incomplete)?

Randy

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Mahaffy" <Mahaffy@dordt.edu>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] YEC--What can we offer them?

>
> --
>
> James Mahaffy (mahaffy@dordt.edu) Phone: 712 722-6279
> 498 4th Ave NE
> Biology Department FAX : 712 722-1198
> Dordt College, Sioux Center IA 51250-1697
>
>>>> On 7/3/2007 at 12:43 PM, in message
> <20070703174520.64828711495@gray.dordt.edu>, "Randy Isaac"
> <randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I haven't been following this thread closely but I think Kuhn just rolled
> over in his grave.
>
> He would claim that there was lot of evidence for pre Einstein physics
> and in fact some of those models still work.
>
> In chemistry biologist still use the Bohr mode because it explains some
> concepts easier than drawing clouds of electrons etc.
>
> The early models of the cell assuming the protein was denatured fit with a
> lot of the evidence.
>
> Some of the early inheritance models (pre-Cell theory fit a lot of the
> evidence).
>
> That does not mean that some of these were not poor or wrong models but
> they did fit with a lot of the evidence of the day.
>
>
>
>
>
> [snip again]
>> "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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jul 4 20:49:27 2007