Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

> I do think their [historical science's] conclusions (say for example, the age of the
> earth) might be more questionable than those drawn from non-historical
> science.

It's much more complicated than that. It is true that historical
science is usually fairly limited in the ability to fully re-create a
particular situation of interest, whereas much experimental science
deals with more readily replicated activities. However, some
historical science conclusions are much better supported than some
experimental conclusions. It depends on the particular question.

For example, certain kinds of fossil shells are commonly found as only
holes in the rock, whereas others in the same deposits still have the
shell. Why? Well, in the cases where we do have actual shells of
both (modern or better fossil preservation), we can check the
mineralogy and see that the ones that dissolve readily are aragonite,
whereas the ones that don't are calcite. We can do the chemical and
physical studies to learn that calcite is thermodynamically more
stable under ordinary conditions reasonably near the earth's surface.
We can find deposits with crumbly aragonitic shells and fairly sturdy
calcitic shells. Thus, the conclusion that the dissolved away shells
were aragonite is quite well-supported. In contrast, some of the
current claims regarding high-energy particle physics are based on a
handful of experiments from a single facility (the only place with the
capacity to do the experiment) and there is much debate as to whether
the data are really indicating anything conclusive.

Another difficulty is that the demarcation is very fuzzy. I am
sequencing DNA from modern mollusks, which is fairly experimental, and
analyzing patterns of similarity and difference between them to
determine what is probably a distinct species at present as well as
what the probable evolutionary history of the species is. The latter
aspect is more historical.

Again, if I go into the lab (or kitchen) and mix acetic acid with
sodium bicarbonate and generate sodium acetate, water, and carbon
dioxide, it sounds very experimental. However, I am relying on
historical data about previous experiments to guide my expectations
and for comparison to see if there was anything unusual about my
results.

Another major problem with the standard professed skepticism about
historical science is that it only applies to the historical science
you don't like. It typically is associated with uncritical
endorsement of the historical claims of creation science.

-- 
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.