Much as I would like to get into this thread, I've not been able to
find a niche - until now! I am going to suggest that there has been
very little meaningful communication because both Randy and Steve
have different views of what science is. The last sentence above is
the one I want to pick up on: science deals in facts not belief
systems. I would suggest that belief systems are at the heart of ALL
human cognitive activity. Scientists are no exception. The view of
science as an objective discipline where the scientist is a distand
impartial observer and analyst is, in my view, unreal. If Randy
wants to communicate more effectively with Steve, I suggest he digs
somewhat deeper - going to the belief systems of scientists acting as
filters on what is observed and what options are deemed within the
range of acceptability.
RL> What is science to you Steve? Something that only agrees with a
> secular humanistic and atheistic view that you have been educated
> with?
I find a tension between this challenge and the style of
argumentation earlier in the post. Have you really demonstrated to
Steve that his science is secular humanism in action? Frequent
references to Ager do not show this - as Ager was just as much a
secular humanist as the conventional uniformitarian.
I'm appreciative of the responses I received to my post on isochron
dating, and I'm [slowly] preparing a reply. I'll be majoring on
presuppositions - which I think is the only way to communicate rather
than argue. If the Randy/Steve exchange moves on to a debate about
presuppositions in historical geology, I might well be tempted to
participate!
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***