Re: Kansas Closing arguments

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>; "Keith Miller"
<kbmill@ksu.edu>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: Kansas Closing arguments

> We all know what historical science is. Historical science = assumed
> timeline + results from experimental sciences. The former is the history
> part and the latter is the science part. Detective work, forensic science
> that is what historical science is.

& your point is?

Astronomy & astrophysics are "historical sciences" every bit as much as is
geology or evolutionary biology. In astronomy we are always dealing with
the past, & often the very distant past. We can do "controlled experiments"
on full-scale astronomical phenomena even less than we can in geology or
biological evolution. But no one suggests that astronomy is less of a
science than is physics or chemistry.

In part the difference (between the way astronomy & geology are viewed)
stems from the fact that we tend to consider the astronomical signals that
we get via EM radiation as more direct than the geological or
paleontological signals that we get via fossils &c. But in reality they are
both signals that come from the past & which require theories for their
interpretation. In neither case do we have theory-free raw data. The fact
that the geological & paleontological data is more difficult to interpret
because the phenomena are messier doesn't change this in principle.

Moorad, the sort of arguments you present are expected from scientific
diletantes like P. Johnson but a competent physicist like yourself shouldn't
be doing this.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
 
Received on Wed May 18 14:47:48 2005