The usual restrictions of science seem, among other things, to serve the purpose
of narrowing serious consideration to the most useful working hypotheses
available at the present time. Not a bad goal for most scientific pursuits. In
the broader domain of rational thought about nature, a goal of narrowing focus
to fewer hypotheses seems less appropriate. Here the useful boundary for
continuing consideration would better seem to be that an hypothesis not be
overwhelmingly contradicted by natural data. Admittedly this may well deprive
one of a mechanism for ever determining a unique winner among all available
hypotheses. Such would be a situation of low utility for most scientific
endeavors, but for the subject of natural history and of origins in particular,
I would think the broader approach is preferable. It seems to me that an
appropriate objective of natural history would be the accurate description of
the set of all tenable hypotheses rather than the perhaps unattainable goal of
determining the unique correct hypothesis.
Some might be rather uncomfortable with the range of possibilities this approach
opens for consideration. For example, the notion that this earth might be
"someone's aquarium/terrarium" would seem to be a valid scenario. Perhaps some
form of "alien" life has been introducing new species to the planet from some
other unknown place a few at a time throughout earth history. Perhaps this is
not too far from some of the notions usually considered on this reflector.
While such a notion clearly violates any "scientific" restriction requiring
simplicity or economy of natural laws, it nevertheless is not overwhelmingly
contradicted by natural data.
It would seem that if one were to take this approach seriously, one of their
primary tasks would be to carefully examine the conclusions reached using the
restrictions of science. The goal here would be to determine which of these
conclusions are required in order to not contradict the actual raw natural
data, in contrast to those conclusions which have been reached at least in part
because of the restrictions of science. Unfortunately, those who pursue such a
goal are often considered to be non-rational or to be against science in its
usual area of endeavor.
Happily, on this reflector I have not seen such a predominant bias, in the short
time that I have been reading here. Still, on this reflector I have started to
wonder if there isn't a degree of disfavor regarding those who would like to
explore further notions associated with "young earth creation". Granted, the
strident behavior and willingness to reach unjustified conclusions exhibited by
some folk who push such notions, is rather disheartening. However, it seems to
me that in the exploration of how wide is the range of hypotheses that don't
contradict natural data once one sets aside some of the usual restrictions of
science, there are still some possibilities open for rational consideration in
this arena of young earth creation. Perhaps others have progressed further in
such an exploration and have been able to conclude otherwise. If that is the
case, one might hope that folk would be patient in helping others to acquire the
same knowledge as they have. One can't help but suspect, however, that any
impatience shown on this reflector is not from a lack of willingness to be
helpful but stems rather from, firstly, a natural reaction to the strident
behavior of some in the "yec" camp and, secondly, from not having personally
much desire to participate in sorting out those conclusions resulting from the
usual restrictions of science. At any rate, those of us who still find some
value in exploring some of the notions in this area and who limit ourselves to
polite discourse on this subject, appreciate the interaction with those of you
who see less of interest in some of the "yec" notions. I for one see no reason
why one might not have an active interest in exploring both the notions of
"young" and "old" forms of creation.
Norm Smith
74532,66@compuserve.com