>Can a scientific theory be developed based primarily on explaining what
>happened or must it develop by making hard predictions about what will
>happen (in a given experimental set up) and then testing those predictions?
All science has to be developed based on what happened, whether it is what
happened in an experiment done last week in the lab or the evidence about
what happened five million years ago. The difference to me seems more
quantitative than qualitative, relating to the amount of experimenting that
can be done. It also varies much more with the specific question than the
broad field. A lot of geology is experimental, such as Glenn examining the
evidence of various tests and deciding where to try to find oil. If the
well produces, his predictions were right. Other areas of historical
science make specific predictions about what should be found if you study a
certain rock or about what you will find if you replicate what seems to
have been the conditions of formation for the sample at hand. The
discovery of evaporites underlying the whole Mediterranean, for example,
led to the hypothesis that it had extensively dried up upon being cut off
from both the Atlantic and the Red Sea. Further evidence in support of
this was discovered or recognized, such as the presence of deeply cut river
channels far below modern sea level, the abrupt shift from non-marine to
deep marine sediments when the strait of Gibraltar opened, and
corresponding shifts in oceanic conditions outside the Mediterranean
(slightly higher sea levels, etc.). It is less clear whether the bottom of
the Mediterranean was largely dry or whether there were extensive
hypersaline lakes. Experimental evaporating of seawater and models of the
rate at which water would have come in from the rivers, rain, and seeping
through from the Atlantic or Red Sea can help address those questions, but
without a comprable setting today, it is difficult to be sure about details
of the environment.
From a Christian perspective, the reliability of historical evidence is
particularly important. If Christ's death and resurrection are not
historical facts, Christianity is pointless. Questioning historical
evidence is a rather foolish approach (not that that was the intent of the
question at hand, but some YEC approaches do so). Historical sciences also
are a part of seeking to understand creation in order to properly rule over
it and thus are obeying the mandate given in Genesis 1:26 and 28 and
implied in 2:19.
David C.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 21 2000 - 10:22:25 EST