From: Alexanian, Moorad (alexanian@uncw.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 21 2003 - 13:55:33 EDT
Scientists collect data with purely physical devices. The construction
of those devices does involve "theory" but invariably there is a sense
in which one is measuring raw data. The study of the early universe,
including all, does give rise to theories but such theories are not a la
par with, say, quantum theory. The reason being that quantum theory is
used to create such "theories." Does determining who committed a crime
for a forensic scientist involve theory? It is more a scenario that
prosecutors want to prove using physical and other evidence. Such
scenarios may not qualify as theory since they have no predicative
power.
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jay Willingham
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 12:01 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: facts (was Re: Student perceptions re evolution)
I do not class the big bang and evolution as theories, just as
fascinating
hypotheses. The big bang is very interesting because if God did create
time, matter and energy in 7 days, that would be an incredibly dynamic
event.
I also think biblical timelines based on assumed generational length are
hypothetical, given the ancients predilection to telescope genealogies,
such
as saying the Jews are "Sons of Abraham".
I agree with your statement:
"ALL scientific "facts" involve some theory. There are no strictly "raw
data."
Even the simple statement that an object is at a certain position
involves
theories of
light propagation &c."
That is the key, to realize that even our most sophisticated perception
devices see from within creation through a dark prism that the father of
lies can manipulate.
So, too, can the Lord inspire.
That in mind, the search for knowledge, science, is a holy quest.
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Jay Willingham" <jaywillingham@cfl.rr.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 11:33 AM
Subject: facts (was Re: Student perceptions re evolution)
> Jay Willingham wrote:
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > It is declaring as fact the hypothetical interpretation of
daisy-chained
> > facts that is the root of the problem.
> >
> > Gene interpretation is not so firm a fact as the existence of
fossils
and
> > the Grand Canyon.
>
> ALL scientific "facts" involve some theory. There are no strictly
"raw
data."
> Even the simple statement that an object is at a certain position
involves
theories of
> light propagation &c.
>
> Our knowledge about the distant past of the earth or of the universe
of
course
> also involves theories. The question is whether these are well-tested
scientific
> theories, untested speculations, or philosophical & religious
presuppositions disguised
> as scientific theories - or some combination thereof. The phrase
"daisy
chained facts"
> seems to be used pejoratively above, but I would certainly prefer a
concatenation of
> well-tested theories & observations that concludes that the MWB was
emitted ~14 x 10^9
> years ago to a "simple" claim that anything we see is less than 10^4
years
old because
> that's what one interpretation of Genesis says.
>
> But to the argument that scientific "facts" like the big bang or
evolution
don't
> have to be accepted because they involve theories, the only necessary
response is "So's
> your old man." Claims that life didn't evolve or that the big bang
didn't
happen also
> involve theory.
>
> Shalom,
> George
>
>
>
>
> George L. Murphy
> gmurphy@raex.com
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Aug 21 2003 - 13:58:13 EDT