Re: [asa] historical science?

See below:

-- 
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 9/10/2007 at 12:20 PM, in message
<20070910172239.255BD7120F5@gray.dordt.edu>, "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> I would like to give a response to Moorad but I cant understand what he is 
> saying, except that he is not willing to recognise the scientific basis of 
> geology as a historical science. No amount of explanation will help him.
I believe Moorad has at times assumed geology is a historical science and indeed parts of it are, including the parts I got my PhD in.   I think Michael is right that Moorad and some others tend at times to dismiss these sciences.  That is rather unfortunate and I think wrong [there Michael - I thought you would appreciate my being critical of the other side too].  We should also remember that some of geology is hard rock and really applied physics and chemistry to the nature of rocks. 
However, observational and historical science are different beasts than physics and chemistry.  Yes as someone indicated we can be sure that we have Trilobites in rocks we call Cambrian. On the other hand we are less confident on how well the models we use for deltas and swamps really work for the Carboniferous coal-swamps.  In observational science I might be right in the patterns I think I see in dispersing cougars, but since I can't put collars on them and since the number of observations is low and especially because living creatures don't always read the book and act the same way, my conclusions should be considered tentative. See; http://www.greatplainszoo.org/conservation/cougar-in-our-area
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.