RE: [asa] American Vision- anti-evolution

Astronomy can be simply making observations of the night sky but
cosmology is a science and seeks to understand the workings of our
universe.

Yours faithfully,
 
Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 2:58 PM
To: 'AmericanScientificAffiliation'
Subject: RE: [asa] American Vision- anti-evolution

I would have to ask, is astronomy science? It's not "repeatable" (no
one
can make a supernova explode over and over, to observe it multiple
times).
It's not "testable" for the same reason (no one can make a solar system,
to
see how it responds to certain inputs or conditions). And astronomy is
not
"observable" in the same sense as I'm sure the article is saying that
evolution is not observable -- generally no one was there when it
happened
(i.e. no one was there when the star was formed, or the supernova
occurred,
so all we have are evidences of the event billions of years later).

The "observable" claim is easiest to deal with -- there's plenty of
evidence
to observe. The "repeatable" claim is wrong two ways -- assuming a
controlled experiment is necessary for science, and in defining what is
repeatable. In both biology and astronomy, the repeatability is not the
same as in chemistry class, but it comes through large numbers of
observations of similar phenomena, and drawing inferences to explain the
data. Both are testable in the same way -- drawing inferences on the
data
leads to creation of hypotheses, which become testable predictions of
yet
unknown or unseen features, and further discovery and observation either
confirms or contradicts the hypotheses. The testability also comes in
astronomy with computerized models of simulated conditions, and in
biology
there are experimental aspects that can be demonstrated.

These are nonsensical objections, even if one doesn't accept current
evolutionary hypotheses as the correct explanation.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Dehler, Bernie
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:02 PM
To: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: [asa] American Vision- anti-evolution

I just got this link from an email today:
http://www.americanvision.org/article/evolution--epistemology/

Excerpt, saying evolution is not science:
RE: Evolution
"And so there the myth is, in large part, right out there in the open
for
all to see. And upon what is it based? Faith, and faith alone. Why?
Because
it's not repeatable, observable, testable science and therefore it's not
science at all."

I would argue- take the DNA evidence for evolution- studying genomes of
animals and cross-comparing. That seems repeatable, observable, and
testable to me.

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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 7 17:09:03 2009