Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Bruce

So often TV programmes are over-simplistic - in a sense they have to be -
and thus complex issue are presented as simple. They also ignore they way
science has been hammered out over centuries and thus present everything as
"truth" in a way which seems arrogant and unfounded so that you seem to
start with a conclusion and thus it seems a presupposition.

So, the enormous age of the earth is a fact, but it was hammered out over
centuries and is now presented as truth and presupposition. If you read
Rudwick's massive two books on geology from 1770 to 1840 you will see the
sheer tentative thrashing everything out in a tentative way.

If I took you to Snowdonia in Wales I could explain clearly much of the
glaciations as a FACT and almost brook no question. However if I then
explained how geologists came to that conclusion it would be a tentative
working towards the idea and then reasonable conviction by the geologists
Buckland and Darwin in 1841/2 but it was only accepted as FACT 20 years
later.

Popular science often overlooks all this.

Granted that historical science is slightly more tentative, there are many
things geologists can be totally dogmatic about e.g. the vast age of the
earth, and the general order of strata - via Cambrian Ordovician Silurian
etc, but there are also many questions e.g. when was the first vertebrate
etc.

To give some examples ; vast age is definite, age of the earth as 4.6 by
almost definite, late Precambrian glaciations almost definite (but in 1970
many did not accept it, I did as a result of geological observations), but
that the whole earth was covered in ice - Snowball earth - is a reasonable
hypothesis but may not be the case. I favour it but it may be proved wrong.
this may give a sliding scale of historical science.

As many say science never gives ABSOLUTE proof but there is always doubt
even though often that doubt is so small that the proof is absolute!!

The same applies with"ordinary " history, where conclusions vary in
reliability according to the evidence.

The important thing is to contrast popular science ( and school science)
which is over dogmatic and "real" science which is open and questioning

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 5:22 PM
Subject: 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.
Received on Tue Aug 26 16:38:05 2008