Re: [asa] Non-controversial science

Well put, Randy. I would only say that divine intervention transcends
not only historical science, but all science, if it diverts the natural
order of creation.

Randy Isaac wrote:

> I'm currently enjoying a course by Prof. Steven Goldman at Lehigh U
> title "Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It."
> Certainly he underscores the rather shaky philosophical underpinnings
> of observational science. No, it is by no means absolute truth but, as
> you point out, it isn't relativism either.
>
> The debate about so-called "historical" vs "observational" science
> (categories which I hesitate to use) is indeed an important one from
> the perspective of what we know and how we know it. Goldman points out
> that "in explaining natural phenomena, nature must be treated as a
> closed system epistemologically (natural phenomena can be explained as
> the effects of natural causal agents only). This rule is first found
> in the 12th century treatise "Natural Questions" by the English monk
> Adelard of Bath." He goes on to talk about how the fundamental
> biblical concept of God's faithfulness and unchanging nature coupled
> with the creation of all things then leads to the basic assumption
> that the laws of nature apply everywhere and for all time. This
> provides the basis for being able to do historical science. Causal
> relationships that we observe today can be safely (though not in an
> absolute sense) assumed to have been valid in the past.
>
> In addition to the issues raised by several of you, questions about
> the validity of the "historical" sciences also seem to arise in order
> to allow for divine intervention in the past. This can range from
> wanting to allow for changing decay constants in radioactive elements
> (RATE) to progressive creationism with periodic intervention. None of
> this, I would submit, is consistent with the core Christian worldview
> assumption of the faithfulness and unchanging character of God the
> creator of all things. Though we cannot logically or empirically rule
> out such a possibility, it does not seem to be biblically or
> theologically consistent.
>
> Hence, I would suggest that the main limitation of "historical"
> science is that it is possible that crucial information may be lost
> forever and cannot be retrieved. But then in "observational" science
> there may be parameters that are beyond reach of our capabilities.
> Both have limitations. The distinction between "historical" vs
> "observational" is not the primary factor in what we know or don't
> know but the availability of critical and relevant data.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Bennett" <304law@bellsouth.net>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] Non-controversial science
>
>
>> I think everyone is missing my point. I am NOT post-modern in my
>> thinking, and in fact rail against relativism in discussions with
>> others regularly. I believe in absolute truths, the value of science
>> both historical and non-historical, and see science as not just
>> complementary but also supportive of theology. But science, just
>> like theology, does not provide 100% proof of absolute truths. It
>> provides evidence, sometimes apparent indisputable evidence, that
>> still must be accepted on faith or belief. The fact we have free
>> will to reason and accept or reject the evidence does not belong to
>> scientists, lawyers, theologians, politicians or anyone other than
>> the individual. Just because there is a best way to explain an
>> outcome, i.e., the rabbit and the fox example, clearly doesn't make
>> it an absolute truth. I just cannot always reject other possible
>> realistic outcomes just because there is some better reason, or
>> because that's all the information I have. To me that's overly
>> simplistic. But that doesn't make me a relativist. Individuals
>> make determinations of what are absolute truths based on what we
>> learn (evidence) through our five senses, at a given time and place
>> in history, and then apply reason to accept or reject them. This is
>> our design and what we are expected to do when we accept Christ.
>> Otherwise there would be no need for faith. I admit my legal
>> training and experience could easily lead me down a post-modern path,
>> and I can see how you may have interpreted my comments that way, but
>> it's not the case. You view information from the perspective of a
>> scientist and I from that of a lawyer, and yet we both believe in
>> absolute truths. I think the difference may be in how we process the
>> evidence that ultimately leads us to those truths. One thing I've
>> learned from many years of school, multiple degrees/certifications
>> and human experience is that the more I know, the more I realize the
>> less I know, but that the more I also believe in absolute truths.
>>
>> Michael Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> To me this is frightfully post-modern and relativises everything.
>>>
>>> One of dawkins' sensible comments is "show me a postmodernist at
>>> 30000ft" i.e. about to be pushed out of a plane. All know the
>>> results of g even if one cannot give a number to it. g is truth!
>>>
>>> Too much can be made of objective and subjective and today science
>>> is far more aware that the observer has some bearing on the results
>>> but that does not make everything subjective.
>>>
>>> As for proof in the eyes of the beholder, this is where rigour in
>>> science comes in as much for historical science as anything else.
>>> Personal belief can prevent any seeing as in the case of global
>>> warming deniers, who have to run against the whole consensus of
>>> science.
>>>
>>> Finally geology is as much a hard science as anything like physics
>>> and chemistry. There is hard evidence to deal with as when with some
>>> groups (including Harvard students) we look at the Bellstone in
>>> Shrewsbury. This is a rounded boulder 3ft across which has been
>>> left. Darwin mentioned as inexplicable in 1820s. It was realised
>>> that the rock type indicated it came from Scotland and its original
>>> locatioon could be worked out. That is hard evidence, and histroical
>>> science seeks to explain things like that. As Keith points out these
>>> methods have rigour .
>>>
>>> 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 10:53 PM
>>> Subject: 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.