Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. I'm not questioning so much current day
conclusions per se as I am the presuppositions behind them. When I
watch the Discovery Channel, I become frustrated when commentators (no
surprise where the root of that word comes from) present conclusions of
historical science as "truth", when we know from history that accepted
"truths" have been proven untrue. For example, if the Discovery Channel
had existed in the 1300-1400s, wouldn't we learn the solar system is
geocentric, because that is what the experts commonly accepted as the
truth? And should we just accept it because that is what the best
science of the day knew? I think I can safely say you would say 'no'.

I am not a YEC, and do believe the earth is highly likely to be very
old. As you point out we can't always put the authority of historical
science conclusions on par with certain determinations like the boiling
point of water, which seems to argue that a sliding scale of authority
exists for historical (science) conclusions. Yet the mass media rarely
makes such distinctions.

I think one of the beauties of historical science are it's continuous
revelations, but to put all historical scientific conclusions on par
with absolute truth simply degrades its ability to be open-minded. As
an attorney, Christian and non-scientist I wish those in the historical
scientific community that present their findings as 'proof' of their
conclusions would be more scientifically honest by admitting their
findings support a hypothesis, and not absolute proof as the only
explanation of their version of the truth. Western law recognizes proof
of the 'truth' can only be determined relevant to an objective
(human-guided) standard (e.g., beyond a reasonable doubt, clear and
convincing, etc.), but for some reason science seems to ignore or at
least minimize this comparable.

Bruce

Michael Roberts wrote:

> Bruce
>
> A lot share your questioning. It is right that historical sciences can
> disturb Christians as to accept geology means that creation cannot be
> confined to 6 days 6000 years ago, and many are taught that in their
> churches or think that that is the orthodox Christian position.
>
> In a sense historical conclusions are more questionable than say
> determinations on the boiling point of water at sea level.
>
> However what do you conclude if your kids' pet rabbit has disappeared
> overnight and there are prints of fox paws along with a trail of blood
> leading from the hutch? Clearly a fox killed your bunny and that is
> the principle of historical science. We use it everyday and to deny it
> means that no criminal could get convicted unless they admitted guilt
> or were seen by trustworthy witnesses. Every forensic science is
> historical science.
>
> The basic principle of geological science is to extend that back
> further. Early geologists had no idea of the age of the earth but
> gradually the evidence from strata pointed to great age. No actual
> figures could be given before radiometric age dating.
>
> Geology has now been going over 300 years and radiometric age dating
> for over 100 and the results are conclusive;- at the very worst the
> age is vast millions on millions or best the age of the earth is 4.6
> by an accepted figure for 60 years. Some of my geology teachers were
> radiometric age men and if they could demonstrate otherwise they would
> have done as that would have enhanced their careers etc etc.
>
> Of course there will be minor corrections as for example when I went
> to do field work in part of South Africa and was tie fourth geologist
> to look at the area I soon came to the conclusion that some rocks
> which were reckoned to be early Precambrian (i.e. 2.4 by) were much
> younger and soon the other geologist looking at was convinced (BTW he
> was an atheist and became a leading German geologist). We convinced
> two of the previous workers that they were wrong, but the first was
> dead so couldn't persuade him. The two happily accepted our arguments
> and were convinced.
>
> As for being questionable, there are simply no arguments that the
> earth is not billions of years old and rocks any age up to that. The
> arguments put forward against a vast age have without exception shown
> to be wrong. This may sound arrogant but this is what geologists have
> been saying for over 200 years.
>
> I may add that I well aware of arguments like those of AIG and the
> RATE project (for that consult Bertsche on the ASA website).
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> I am not a scientist nor do I have a scientific background, so I'm a
>> bit trepid in my remarks. But isn't it the conclusions of historical
>> science that sometimes causes the greatest stir among many
>> Christians? For me, I don't outright reject historical science as
>> being a legitimate science; however, I do think their conclusions
>> (say for example, the age of the earth) might be more questionable
>> than those drawn from non-historical science.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

-- 
Bruce W. Bennett
Bennett Law Offices, LLC
P.O. Box 968
Grayson, GA 30017
tele.  (770) 978-7603
FAX    (770) 978-7628
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.