Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

David, I fully understand your points and agree. I think you make a
good point that historical science is sometimes attacked to further
one's viewpoint. It seems all science is subject to misuse, and that is
the point where I get frustrated --, when I hear one viewpoint expounded
as if it were unassailable, to the exclusion of other viable
explanations or theories.

David Campbell wrote:

>>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.
>
>
>

-- 
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.