Re: RATE

From: Dawsonzhu@aol.com
Date: Thu Oct 02 2003 - 12:57:48 EDT

  • Next message: douglas.hayworth@perbio.com: "Re: RATE (competing views of science and faith)"

    George Murphy wrote:

    > 1) If we never made _any_ prejudgements, we'd never get anywhere. This
    > can be simply
    > another word for learning from experience. There is some point to the old
    > story of the
    > little boy who cried wolf.
    >
    > 2) We should be wary of prejudging whole classes of people - especially
    > races or ethnic
    > groups for which the actions of one member may have nothing to do with those
    > of another.
    > It is something else to be suspicious of claims made by members of a group
    > defined by a
    > particular set of beliefs which in the past has played fast and loose with
    > the truth in
    > defending those beliefs. That is the case /a fortiori/ when some of these
    > claims are
    > being made by the same people who have been wrong in the past with similar
    > arguments for
    > their distinctive views.
    >
    > 3) It is not possible to "explore these claims" until full information
    > (experimental
    > arrangements, data, &c) are made available. Making such information
    > available is
    > supposed to be a major purpose of publication in refereed professional
    > journals.
    > Until the YECs do that they will, quite justifiably, be subject to the same
    > kind
    > of suspicion directed to the cold fusion claims announced at a press
    > conference. Simply
    > saying "I can call spirits from the vasty deep" deserves no credibility.
    >
    > 4) Evaluation of such claims is not a matter of deciding for or against
    > isolated pieces
    > of data. Even if these recent YEC claims turn out to be true, we would have
    > to take
    > into account the facts that
    > a) there is still a great deal of observational data that points to an
    > old
    > earth and old universe, and
    > b) we have no theoretical framework in which these putative data can be
    >
    > encompassed. Simply saying "decay rates speeded up a lot during the
    > creation week or
    > the flood" is no theory at all. It's just the "It's a miracle" claim again.
    > & BTW it's
    > the same kind of thing that Humphreys did with his failed cosmological
    > model.
    >

    In general this is my attitude toward this matter too. However, one thing
    that is more pressed on us (Christians) is to reflect a life that is changed.
    That is surely not easy, especially when I hear the same nonsense repeated
    again and again and just when I thought there was a reprieve, someone else
    repeats some variation of the same nonsense all over again. Since scientists
    rarely have much of a life to begin with, due to the excessive work involved,
    that kind of silliness is surely enough to tempt anyone to call the Lord's
    name in vain (and a few other words not good for repeat).

    Being part Scotsman, I have had to learn the hard way that it is good to know

    when to stop sometimes. But unlike the standard science referee, we do
    have to make a little more effort to show tolerance toward people who are
    different.

    By Grace alone we proceed,
    Wayne



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Oct 02 2003 - 12:58:18 EDT