>
>How do we ever decide "reasonably high probability" in science? Let me
>approach it from the other direction. When do we decide inductively that so
>many systems obey a certain natural law, that the law is actually
>universal, and that it applies to as-yet-uninvestigated systems? Example:
>by the early part of this century, the law of the conservation of momentum
>seemed written in stone. But eventually certain nuclear phenomena led to
>the postulate that a "neutrino" existed. There was a real problem, because
>it seemed as if some momentum was lost. Some physicists actually toyed with
>the idea that perhaps the law of the conservation of momentum was not
>actually universal. But in the 1950s experimental evidence revealed the
>existence of the neutrino and, to make a long story short, there was no
>further worry about the validity of momentum conservation. So why can't we
>hold off a bit on the universality of the law of evolution in biological
>systems when there seem to be some anomalies? That is, why can't we adopt
>the tentative attitude some physicists had for a while concerning momentum
>conservation?
Christians are always using this wait-and-see argument. I strongly dislike
this approach and have said so on numerous occasions. I believe that it has
become nothing but a cop out for us Christians to avoid finding the answers to
our problems. The real question is how will we know when it is time to cease
waiting for solutions?
Look at it this way. In the nuetrino example, those who believed that
conservation was violated and those who believed in the neutrino devised
experiments to test the hypotheses. They performed experiments to see if the
neutrino could be found or if other violations of momentum conservation could
be detected. No one said wait-and-see! Waiting leads to not working on the
problem. Christians who have adopted the wait-and-see attitude perform no
experiments to attempt to prove their position. It is the parlaying of hope
into evidence.
One other question. It has been 137 years since Darwin suggested Evolution and
the arguments are no different today then they were then. Listen to the pleas
for more information.
"But, consciously or unconsciously, you would almost certainly
make some sort of theory as to the manner in which these fossils
got into the rocks; and you would also frame some such theory just
about as soon as you first saw them. It would be quite contrary to
human nature to hold your mind in a strictly non-committal attitude
until all the evidence was available. The information called for by
the latter procedure would take a very long time; it could not be
completed in one lifetime by any one person; it would require the
co-operation of many persons in all parts of the world, perhaps for
many successive generations. But this method of gathering in all
the evidence before drawing any conclusion would be the only
scientific procedure. It would be extremely unscientific to jump
to a conclusion regarding a matter of such vast importance, while
as yet we had only a small portion of the data necessary for
framing a safe induction regarding the physical theory of the globe
we are supposed to be examining."~George McCready Price, The
Geological Ages Hoax, (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1931), p. 17
"We must await more information from science and exegesis
before we can propound a pointed theory of the harmony of Genesis
and anthropology. The most vexing part of the problem is the
connexion of Gen. 3 with Gen. 4. The evident recency of the data
of Gen. 4 seems to involve us with the recency of man in Gen 3.
While awaiting a solution to the problem, we can remind ourselves
of certain features which we tend to overlook; for anatomy,
anthropology, and physiology are not the sole sources of
information about man."~Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of
Science and Scripture, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1954), p. 229
"It is the task of evangelical research to determine the
nature of the Genesis 'kind.' We may infer that all changes take
place only within boundaries set by the creative hand of God since
the Scriptures teach that organisms reproduce after their kind.
Hence no change can take place capable of causing an organism to
move to a kind different from that of its ancestors. For this
reason it is important to discover what boundaries of the 'kinds'
are."~Wayne Frair and P. William Davis, The Case for Creation,
(Chicago: Moody, 1967), p. 79.
"Besides the fact that a function has not been demonstrted for an organ is no
real evidence that it has no function. It is quite possible that these
structures have a function that has not yet been discovered."John W. Klotz,
Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia, 1970), p. 132
"We had tried to show how the
geologic data could be interpreted this way, but we repeatedly
stressed that our geological conclusions were tentative, subject to
modification through further research, provided only that the basic
Bible teaching of a global cataclysm not be changed."~Henry M.
Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book
Publishers, 1984), p. 169.
"Somehow new continental structures and mountains would have to
rise up, accompanied by the opening of new ocean basins into which
the floodwaters could drain. How this was accomplished - whether
by divine miracle or by natural tectonic readjustments - may remain
to be determined by future studies."~Henry M. Morris, Biblical
Creationism, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), p. 40.
"I have a different hope and expectation. It seeems more
likely that future research will continue to confirm only slight
variations in the genetic material of humans. If this is the
case, we should see biologists' date for 'Adam and Eve' drop from
a maximum of about 200,000 years ago to a date within the
biblical range of about 10,000 to 60,000 years ago."~Hugh Ross,
"Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists," Facts & Faith, 9:3, 3rd
Qtr. 1995, p. 3
"Creationists
have responded by noting that at least some so-called pseudogenes
may have an unknown function, while other pseudogenes may be the
result of degenerative changes in living organisms only since the
Fall, not relics of past evolutionary events. ~John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark:
A Feasibility Study, (Santee: Institute for Creation Research, 1996),p. 202
Every time Christians run into a difficulty we appeal to future data and we
have been doing it as far back as I have books. It is a cop-out.
The point I am trying to make is that God placed us here in the 20th century
to deal with the data of the 20th century NOT the data of the 24th century.
Our job should be to construct hypotheses which fit TODAY's data into a
coherent whole which does not require the large scale overthrow of everything
science has learned. Let those who follow us deal with the data of the
future. Our job is to deal with today!!!!!
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm