Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Thanks Michael. I am only trying to parse the subjective from the
objective. There are sincere beliefs from intelligent folks that are
reasonable and supportable who are diametrically opposed. Some argue
persuasively that nicotine is not harmful or that global warning is not
real, or a host of other things. I'm not picking on the age of the
earth or any other particular "fact" of historical science to say it
can't be "proven". I only say that proof is in the eyes of the
beholder. If I see a car and say it is red and you see the same car and
say it is orange, whose to say my fact is right and yours is wrong or
vica-versa? Your fact may have far more support and be generally
accepted, but the acceptance of the 'fact' as fact is up to the
individual hearing about it and not by the person telling it. Bruce

Michael Roberts wrote:

> 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.
>
>

-- 
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.