I felt like "At last, we're to the real crux of the issue! Finally, the =
answer will come in this next reply that will once and for all =
illuminate Jim's position, confirming that the BIG DIFFERENCE between =
his view and that of most scientists is that he does not think =
historical sciences should be judged based on comparative empirical =
predictive success!"
But instead of a reply, I got only "bye bye"! :^>
Can you give one last reply, for old times' sake?
I'll enclose a copy of my preior mesage to make it easy for you! (Hey =
-- you can thank me later. :^> )
And I'll even reemphasize the key portion:
-----
I think this is the crux of the matter. You avoided my most important =
question, saying it was inappropriate: Can creation science of some form =
offer better predictions than evolutionary theory of some sort?
Your direct and emphatic rejection of this question suggests that the =
key to understanding your argument is that you don't think that =
historical science should be judged based primarily on empirical =
success.
Once once claims this, then I think one is moving away from science and =
into philosophy or theology.
------
With best wishes for your future back in real life :^>, and in Christ,
--John
Enc. Copy of message to which I request a reply.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
I agree that there is a distinction between historical and what you call =
functional, what others call operational science.
However, I don't think the difference is nearly so profound as you =
suggest wrt our current discussion. -Each- type of science tries to =
make predictions, though obviously those of evolutionary theory are =
generally much more vague than those of physics or chemistry, as we'd =
both agree, especially if one speaks just of "evolution" in an =
undifferentiated fashion, rather than of specific version of =
evolutionary theory.
I think this is the crux of the matter. You avoided my most important =
question, saying it was inappropriate: Can creation science of some form =
offer better predictions than evolutionary theory of some sort?
Your direct and emphatic rejection of this question suggests that the =
key to understanding your argument is that you don't think that =
historical science should be judged based primarily on empirical =
success.
Once once claims this, then I think one is moving away from science and =
into philosophy or theology. (Hey, I have an advanced degree in =
philosophy, so this is okay with me! :^> ) But the very hallmark of =
modern science is its empirical nature. If theories are not to be =
compared based on empirical predictive success, then this new "science" =
is no longer fundamentally empirical. I find this -very, very- hard =
to swallow. (What do real scientists here think? Is this okay with you =
guys??)
Remember: predictions can be about new discoveries about the past as =
about the future or the present. Steve has emphasized this too, because =
it is key to understanding my (and his, and others') comments. Look at =
cosmology, e.g. Numerous, stunningly confirmed (and often quite =
precise) predictions, all about things that happened billions of years =
ago but we're just now discovering. Ask Hugh Ross whether or not =
prediction plays a key role in historical sciences.
So in your view, if asking about comparative empirically predictive =
success is "the wrong question", even though (or perhaps -because-?) =
this is the basis for evolutionary theory's predominance, on what basis =
should the various competing theories be judged?
It sounds to me like you're trying to come up with a brand new, =
non-empirical (or just non-predictive?), =
tailor-made-for-creationism-broadly-construed philosophy of science. =
I'm not optimistic, but I'm interested.
Yet, a word of caution: I bet that as soon as scientists find out you =
think comparative empirical predictive success is "the wrong question to =
ask", you can plan on losing them. You'll need to have a stunningly =
strong case to overturn hundreds of years of amazingly successful =
precedent. (You'll need the scientific equivalent of the Warren court!! =
:^> )
Let me close by thanking you for the tone of your comments, Jim. You've =
been forceful and to the point, but never (to my mind, anyway) rude or =
abrasive. I hope I always reply in kind. Let's make sure that speaking =
the truth (as merely we see it, alas!) in love is never just a slogan. =
(Along these lines, I promise never to use a pseudo-light-hearted smiley =
face :^> after some snide or condescending comment!! :^> That really =
bugs me.) And let us all remember the parable of the Good Samaritan, =
which here could be restated as the Good Evolutionary Creationist or the =
Good Young Earth Creationist (or whatever theory [theorist....] of =
creation is under attack at the moment). :^> Thanks, Jim.
--John
----------
From: Jim Bell[SMTP:70672.1241@compuserve.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 1996 5:40 PM
To: INTERNET:evolution@Calvin.EDU
Subject: RE: Latest on Mars
John Rylander writes:
<<Jim, let me ask you this: do you think any current creationistic =3D
theories that involve miraculous divine intervention as a part of the =
=3D
theory (e.g., YEC, PC) make better predictions concerning currently =3D
unknown phenomena?>>
John, this is the wrong question. I think you're failing to appreciate =20
between causal science and historical science. You're asking a question =
that=20
falls into the latter realm, but in the syntax of the former. That's why =
it=20
doesn't work.
You write:
<< The "functional" versus "historical" breakdown os science is =3D
inadequate, I believe. Even historical science is very functionally =3D
oriented, trying to make predictions about genetics, the fossil record, =
=3D
etc. >>
You're misunderstanding the term "functional." We use causal science to=20
understand how the world works, so we can uunderstand and, hopefully, =
use that
understanding for our betterment. Thus, function.=20
Historical science seeks to find out WHAT HAPPENED in the past. That=20
information has no "function." It adds to our knowledge about our past. =
Now,=20
something in that knowledge may spur us on toward some causal hypothesis =
or=20
other (experiments on gene splicing for rapid change, perhaps. See =
"Twins"=20
starring Arnold Schwarzenegger). But the two realms are distinct, and =
must be.
Jim