RE: [asa] Non-controversial science

Randy said:
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.

Agreed, and nicely stated.

Improvements in observational science should lead to improvements to
historical science. Some years ago, I had little hope in finding a way to
connect a brightly illuminated proto-Sun accretion disk with history. Then,
out-of-the-blue (pun intended, sorry) came the discovery of Fe-60 in
meteorites. This strongly suggests the Sun had very bright and large
neighbors during the early formation period, which is common in stellar
nurseries. This now affords plausibility to Solar accretion disk an
observer might describe as "waters.

Bruce said:
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.

On this point I disagree since evidence can be objective and, in this case,
faith is not required. We probably disagree on what faith is, perhaps, but
when solid objective evidence is presented and tested, I consider it
knowledge. This is consistent, I think, with Paul's view that hope that is
seen is no longer hope (Rm 8:24). Faith and hope are similar, though not
the same. I do agree with you, however, if the evidence you refer to is
subjective in nature.

"Coope"

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Aug 27 16:37:17 2008