Unfortunately I have never heard of that journal. I can get almost any
article published from a local university if I have some idea where in the
world such a journal is kept. and the name of the article. Do you know any
details like this?
I agree that different observers bring different concepts to the table under
different theories. But I am not sure they bring different observations
sensu strictu. In the early part of this century geologists believed that
the continents were fixed. There was no continental drift. They were aware
of data which was difficult to fit in with that view. Things like, common
species found in Africa and South America, as well as common species found
in India India, Australia and Africa . The observational data was the fact
that these biological similarities were on both continents. There was also
the observational fact that the shape of Africa fits with the shape of South
America, but the fact in the early part of the century was that it was not a
great fit. Also the shorelines of other continents did not show very good
fits. Partially, because of this when Dutoit andWegener proposed drift, it
was rejected (also the mechanism proposed didn't seem sufficient)
Since the observational fact of common species (which couldn't swim or
fly) required a land connection, they came up with the idea of land bridges.
These theoretical land bridges were needed to explain the FACT of common
land species. Everybody believed in these land bridges. There were land
bridges between North and South America, North America and Europe, they were
everywhere. These bridges however, could never be observed since they had
sank beneath the sea and so they remained theoretical.
As the science I am involved in, seismology, progressed, we learned
that we could throw dynamite overboard, and record the sound waves. From
these we could "see" what the ocean bottom looked like as well as the
subbottome structure. What formerly had been a lack of ability to observe
land bridges, now became evidence that they did not exist and never had
existed. (the chain of reasoning is too long to go into here.) But suddenly
new observational facts did not support the theoretical construct of land
bridges. During the same time with the same technology, new observations
were coming in from all over the oceans showing the mid-oceanic ridges
encircling the earth. Magnetic data was showing symmetries on both sides of
the ridges, and deep trenches were discovered. The new observations along
with the failure of observation to support the old view lead to the revival
of another theoretical construct, continental drift.
Continental drift did not disprove previous observation, it
incorporated them. Both drifters and bridgers believed in species
commonality across oceanic expanses. Both agree on the shape fit of South
America with Africa. The bridge advocate said it was due to chance, the
drifter said it was due to cause. The FACT that the fit was kind of poor
among continental shorelines other than South America and Africa was shown
to be wrong. When using the seismological data, it was shown that the edge
of the continental shelves, approximately at 600 feet deep, fit very well for
almost all of the proposed connections. But the old fact, that the
shorelines did not fit, was not disproven, they still don't fit and if drift
is to be based on them, then drift is wrong. But NEW facts showed where the
continents should be joined. Once again, no observational fact was proven to
be wrong.
Today, we are on the very verge of being able to measure the movement of the
continents over a ten to twenty year period. This measurement, will prove
the mobility of the continents, and support drift, but it is not a disproof
of former observational fact. And this is how science should proceed, and
apologetics as well.
I agree, of course, that a healthy debate on what is and is not observational
fact should be carried out, and the theoretical deductions from these facts
should be recognized for what they are, deductions and not observation. And
faulty observations should be weeded out. We can with some care, choose what
theoretical construct can be ignored (such as naturalism) But if we as
christians, choose to ignore what is observational fact vrs, theoretical
deduction, we are doomed to become Luddites.
glenn