 |
HISTORICAL
SCIENCE — Can it be reliable?
Even though we cannot directly observe ancient history, can we — by a logical analysis of historical evidence (in fields like astronomy, geology, paleontology, evolutionary biology, or archaeology) — reach reliable conclusions about what happened in the past, on the earth and in other parts of the universe?
Officially, ASA does not have a position on historical
science. Yes, Part 3 of the ASA
Statement of Faith does say, "We believe that
in creating and preserving the universe God has endowed it with contingent
order
and intelligibility, the basis of scientific investigation." But
critics of historical science will agree; they just
think science is much less reliable when
we're
studying the past history of nature, compared with
studying the current operation
of
nature.
Unofficially, most members of ASA think the
essential
foundation of historical science — the logical evaluation of evidence about
the past — provides
a reliable way to learn about the history of nature.
If all scientists have the same evidence, will
all reach the same conclusion? If
not, does this show that "it's all personal opinion and philosophical
prejudice" with no basis in fact or logic, so you can ignore what scientists
say? Can science help us reach reliable conclusions about the history
of
nature?
Questions about reliability are important for all areas
of historical science. But
they are especially relevant when we ask "how old is it?" because
young-earth creationists challenge the credibility of all historical sciences
that claim to provide evidence for an old earth
and universe. They
ask, "Were you there? Did you see it?", and imply that "NO" means "then
you can't know much about it."
Criticizing historical science is rhetorically useful
for young-earth creationists because it
lets them attack the
credibility of conventional "age science" in which almost all
scientists,
after
carefully examining the scientific evidence-and-logic,
conclude
that the earth and universe
are almost certainly old.
Young-Earth Creationists and Historical Science
• A brief introduction from Answers in Genesis claims that evolutionists (everyone who thinks the universe is old) and creationists (who think the universe is young) will reach different conclusions, even though they see the same evidence, because they "see the world" in a different way, by seeing through a secular history lens and Biblical history lens. (1 k) / In a longer page with the same theme, Ken Ham asks "Where's the proof?" and explains why there is no proof — "we interpret facts differently... because we start with different presuppositions... that we assume to be true... and use to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence" — and why "leaving the Bible out of it" will "stack the deck" against a correct interpretation of history and the Bible. (10 k + 3k)• John Morris asks "Can scientists study the past?" (3 k) and says NO because "Science is limited to the present. ... No scientist has direct access to the past — all are locked in the present, studying the evidence, which exists in the present. ... We cannot scientifically prove creation or disprove evolution." Instead, he proposes an alternative way of knowing: "Even though we can't ‘study the past’ [scientifically], we can [theologically] study the record of One who was an active eyewitness throughout the past, who can accurately communicate His thoughts and deeds, and whose Word is true." Therefore, the Bible is more reliable than science as a way to know the history of nature.
Shifting the Balance between the Two Books
Questions about the reliability of science are important when we're thinking
about how to WISELY
USE THE TWO BOOKS OF GOD because young-earth proponents (like Ham & Morris)
are claiming that: 1) some people, including themselves
and others who agree with them, can correctly interpret one of the books
(scripture), 2) nobody can
correctly interpret the other book (nature) using only scientific evidence-and-logic
without divine revelation. The first claim is examined in AGE
OF THE EARTH (THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES) and the second is the focus in AGE
OF THE EARTH (SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVES).
• Craig Rusbult responds in a three-part series about historical science: Part
1 summarizes basic principles of scientific logic, and explains why historical
science, which is built on a solid foundation of empirical observations,
can produce reliable conclusions (9 k); Part
2 is an application for age-questions, explaining the logical principle
of "multiple
independent confirmations" and analyzing the "postmodern radical
relativism" of young-earth skeptics. (19 k)
•
Keith Miller examines scientific logic in more detail, and carefully
explains The
Similarity of Theory Testing in the Historical and "Hard" Sciences. (14 k
+ 5k) Brian Pitts responds, Dissimilarity
of Theory Testing in Historical and Hard Sciences (4 k)
• Craig Rusbult looks at 3 creationist theories (young-earth, old-earth progressive,
old-earth evolutionary) and 2 questions (about age and design) and asks "Is
old-earth progressive creation inconsistent?" because it accepts one consensus
conclusion of historical science but questions the other? (17 k
+ 6k) (Sections 2 & 3 are especially relevant for thinking about historical
science)
• IOU — by August 2008 there will be a page about sciences (empirical, operations, origins, historical) arguing various perspectives.
more criticism of historical science by young-earth creationists:
•
Searching
for the Magic Bullet by Ken Ham, is an interesting combination of logical
evaluation (re: some YEC claims) and postmodern skepticism about the logic
of historical science in general.
• Although YEC and PostModernism are similar in some ways, they differ
in important ways — for example, PoMo criticizes all science, while YECs
criticize only historical science (to study what happened in the past) while
praising the logic and reliability of non-historical science (to study what is
happening now) — as seen in Loving
God with All Your Mind: Logic & Creation (40 k + refs) and Evolution & Creation,
Science & Religion, Facts & Bias (21 k + refs) which is Chapter
1 in Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati.
• Naturalism,
Operational Science, and Origins Science by Jonathan Sarfati (5 k
for this section, 50 k total)
• an I.O.U. — We'll try to find more
from ICR (especially John and Henry) and will look at other AIG pages, and maybe
from
other YECs (I'll
depend on YECs to help me find these), plus
more "defense of historical science" responses.
| A DISCLAIMER: In this page you'll find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views, which don't necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation. Therefore, linking to a page does not imply an endorsement by ASA. We encourage you to use your own critical thinking to evaluate everything you read. |
THREE TYPES
OF LINKS in this website for Whole-Person Education:
An ITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to another part of it. Above, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-adding, opening a new page in a new window. Below, a NON-ITALICIZED LINK is page-replacing, opening a new page in this window. |
This page, written by Craig Rusbult (editor of ASA Science
Ed Website), is
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/agehistory.htm
copyright © 2006, all rights reserved
Homepage for ORIGINS QUESTIONS
|
||||||||||||||||||