RE: [asa] Keller on Evolution

There is a Spanish saying, "Las cosas, claras, y el chocolate, oscuro," that is, all things have to be clear; however, chocolate can be dark.

What is then wrong to make clear the distinction between experimental sciences and historical sciences? One is not denigrating one at the expense of the other. Forensic science is forensic science, which uses experimental sciences to solve historical problems. What is wrong with that? Is not that what evolutionary theory is?

If I had H. G. Wells' time machine, I could go back in time and answers ALL the questions raised by evolution and cosmology. However, I would not be able to "find" the laws of Nature that we now know, viz., gravity, electromagnetism, weak, strong, etc., provided I did not read, as I traveled back in time, the writings of all the scientists involved in the development of all the theories in the experimental sciences.

The problem I see is that I am asking questions but I have no definite views of what precisely happened in the past. Others hold strong opinions about the past and thus cannot have an honest discourse without imparting, if not imposing, a particular position to others.

Moorad

________________________________

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of David Campbell
Sent: Thu 2/28/2008 1:40 PM
To: ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] Keller on Evolution

The underlying problem is that this is not merely a question of
exactly how one labels categories in areas where history and science
overlap. Dealing with historical events does indeed provide certain
challenges, though there's a thorough continuum between fully
experimental science (even that seeks to replicate what was done in a
similar experiment) to investigations of past events that we cannot
replicate more than minor bits of (e.g., the Big Bang). The real
problem is that it's a popular dodge to dismiss historical science as
inferior and unreliable, as a way to justify young earth or other
scientifically untenable claims. (NB-I do not wish to imply that
"scientifically tenable" is the most important criterion for assessing
something, except possibly in the case of the claim that something is
scientific.)

Such a position is utterly at odds with Christianity. Unless
historical data about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are
reliable, we should go find some other set of beliefs.

--
Dr. David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
University of Alabama
"I think of my happy condition, surrounded by acres of clams"
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.