On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 lhaarsma@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU wrote:
>
>
>
> David Tyler replied:
>
> >LH> For an excellent case-history in the historical sciences, I recommend a
> > > chapter from _Portraits_of_Creation_. (It's either chapter 3, 4, or 5,
> > > I don't remember which.) It gives the history of the geological
> > > sciences, especially through the 18th and early 19th century. Geology
> > > was largely dominated by Christians, confronting the evidence about the
> > > age and history of the earth, trying to make sense of it all. The
> > > chapter probably gives good references for further reading. (I don't
> > > have the book here with me.)
>
> DT> I suppose my general response would be to question the phrase
> > "dominated by Christians". Was Hutton a Christian? He was a Deist
> > and a champion of empiricism - that we know. What about Werner?
> > Did he ever show any interest in Biblical revelation? I do accept
> > that Christians were among the geological community - but my concern
> > is that they did not develop a Christian epistomology.
>
> That's a serious charge to not make. ;-) If you ever do make it,
> you'll need some serious historical evidence to back it up.
>
> DT> The Baconian
> > Two - Book approach dominated and geology developed as an autonomous
> > discipline (despite some rearguard attempts to harmonise). I'll keep
> > reading on this one!
>
>
> First issue: What would you say are the necessary elements of a
> "Christian epistomology" in the natural sciences? A lot depends upon
> what conotations you hang on the words "autonomous" and "harmonise"!
>
> Second issue --- and a very interesting one: To what extent do the
> "leaders" in a scientific field influence its meta-scientific
> interpretations? That's a tough question to answer regarding modern-day
> questions; it'll be even tougher to answer it for the late 18th and
> early 19th century.
>
> No doubt some of the leaders of geology at that time were Deists, and
> some leaders were Christians. Likewise for the "rank-and-file." I
> couldn't guess how the percentages broke down without doing some
> historical research.
>
> But let's stick with this question: the influence of scientific
> "leaders" on meta-scientific interpretations.
>
> Consider quantum mechanics. You will find leading figures of physics
> advocating a variety of quantum mechanics interpretations: standard
> Copenhagen, many worlds, operationalist, non-local hidden variables, and
> a version of Copenhagen which relies on consciousness to "collapse the
> wave function." Yet the overwhelming choice of the rank-and-file
> physicists, for many decades, has been and is the standard Copenhagen.
> Why? It's not because Neils Bohr was more eloquent than advocates of
> the other interpretations. If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the
> standard Copenhagen most closely matches the general "realist" outlook
> of physicists.
>
> A better analogy to 19th century geology is the development of Big Bang
> cosmology --- another "historical science." In the mid 20th century,
> most cosmologists had strong philosophical reasons for prefering the
> steady-state model. "Steady state" is not the only model which can be
> made to fit philosophical Naturalism, but it is the simplest and most
> appealing. (Whether it logically *should* be considered that is another
> discussion.) But steady-state was dropped in face of the data, despite
> the initial preferences of both leading and rank-and-file physicists.
> In the same way, most 18th-century geologists believed in a young earth..
> Young earth is not the only consistent and orthodox reading of Genesis,
> but it is the simplist. It was dropped in the face of the data, despite
> the initial preferences of most geologists.
>
>
> Loren Haarsma
>
>