Re: Most Christians

Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 19:39:23 -0800

At 08:22 PM 1/20/98 -0400, David wrote:
>>At 08:54 PM 1/18/98 -0600, Glenn wrote:
>>
>>>If you can't explain this, then science doesn't support a young earth.
>>
>> This presupposes not only that there are no
>>other possible explanations that you have not considered, but also that
>>your explanation of the data is intransigent. Again, I think this attitude
>>smacks of religion, not science.
>
>Not necessarily-the ambiguity of a negative statement is important. If
>there are no current adequate young-earth explanations for certain data,
>then there is scientific evidence that does not support a young earth.
>Thus, as an absolute claim, "Science supports a young earth" is untrue.
>Most scientists believe that the vast majority of geologic evidence
>supports and old earth; in this weaker sense one could say that "Science
>supports an old earth".

I was addressing the "IF...Then" statement; not the validity of his
assertion, just the basis for it. This reminds me exactly of Robert
Gentry's statement that the synthesis of a hand sized piece of granite
would invalidate his explanation for pleochroic haloes. The logical
connection between not explaining some particular piece of data (we all
have lots of these for any given theory, yet we do not abandon our theories
because of them) and belief in a particular world view is tentative at best.
Art
http://chadwicka.swau.edu