Re: Science vs Science?

David J. Tyler (D.Tyler@mmu.ac.uk)
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:29:27 GMT

On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Glenn Morton wrote:
> Randy, I don't think it is quite as siumple as this. It is an issue of
> Christians mis-representing the observational data! For instance, the
> existence of the geologic column is often said to be fictional by one
> creationist author after another.

[3 quotes snipped]

> All of these guys are observationally wrong.

I am going to suggest that the observational data gives us local
columns. To show the existence of a global geological column, it is
necessary to go beyond "observations" and to address the issue of
interpretating data. We need to clarify the principles behind making
correlations, and to subject the principles to critical scrutiny.

> Go to western North Dakota and
> drill an oil well. You will drill through rocks of every geologic period.
> The fossils are all found in proper order just as seen on the geological
> charts. The W.H. Hunt Trust, Larson #1 well, drilled in McKenzie Co. North
> Dakota and 80 other wells from that county, penetrated all geologic periods.
> There are over 20 other locations on earth where the entire geologic column is
> piled up in proper order.

I have no intention of disputing this. My interest is: how do you
move from local columns to a global column? You refer to numerous
local columns - but what are the grounds for saying the global
pattern exists? Merely saying "every geological period" is
represented does not do this.

See my web page (at the bottom) for a very, very
> detailed description of the entire geologic column. Why do Christian
> apologists fail to do the proper research to know this? I think it is because
> they prefer not to know. Knowing things like this means you have to deal with
> the information.

I will agree that "proper research" has not been done. The general
argument (by those who reject the Goelogical Column) is that there is
an inherent tautology in the principle of correlation: ie. fossils
are used to date the rocks, which in turn are used to date the
fossils. Evolutionary theory is supposed to undergird the whole
exercise. Merely presenting local columns (even "complete" ones)
does not address the issue of HOW correlations are made.

If this post is of interest, I'll respond further - but suffice for
the present to provide this cautionary comment.

Best wishes,

*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***