RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology accordingto Terry

>>> "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu> 7/21/2009 11:53 AM >>> writes:

Many of us have often said that evolutionary theory is more akin to forensic science than to experimental science. Recall that for all the data that was presented in the O.J. Simpson trial, the jury did reach the wrong verdict. This may also be the case for those investigating the past with regard to the question of origins. In forensic science, one supposes a scenario and attempts to prove it with extant physical data. People have to recognize the true nature of evolutionary theory and stop comparing it to theories that are used in the experimental sciences.

***

Ted comments:

As one of those who has often made the analogy to forensic science, and as one who likes to use the trial of Mr Simpson to make a point, let me make that point again. Most Americans IMO would have been more than willing to convict him on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. The jury failed to so do in this case, owing to their mistrust of integrity of the evidence itself -- owing to a history of racial discrimination by public officials in LA. Here is my ironic point: most YECs probably would have voted to convict, which (if true) indicates to me that they do in principle acknowledge the legitimacy of drawing strong conclusions in the absence of witnesses, concerning events that cannot be repeated in the laboratory. At the same time, when it comes to origins issues, the YECs are fully convinced that they have testimony from the only witness to those events -- a witness whose honesty and accuracy are beyond reproach, namely the Maker of heaven and earth, whose pl!
 ain language (in their view) must be plainly interpreted (in their view) if we are to know the truth about those events.

Thus, the irony.

I nevertheless believe that one of the things that really needs to be done, relative to science education in this nation, is to educate people more effectively about the general validity of conducting inquiries in the historical sciences. From interacting extensively with Cameron (here) and numerous other advocates of ID in other venues, I am becoming increasingly convinced that a very different evaluation of the validity of the historical sciences contributes substantially to the ID/TE conversation. This ought to be of much concern all around, including among ID adherents: the more this is emphasized, the more ID could come to resemble genuine creationism (it is vital to the very existence of the YEC view to deny the general validity of the historical sciences); and, to the extent that this is true, to the same extent it will become more difficult for ID proponents to counter the claim that ID is nothing but "creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

I do hope that this point is noted by Cameron and others who favor the ID position; indeed, I would very much like to see a very serious, public conversation about this involving major players on all sides of this -- YEC, ID, OEC, and TE. If any of Cameron's friends in the ID movement pick up on this, I would very much like to hear about it. I've suggested a few times in the past, in private conversations with certain folks, that a secular academic conversation about the distinction between historical and experimental sciences (pick your own terms, if you prefer, as long as the essence of the distinction remains) would be a terrific idea for the NSF to underwrite. It has some validity, even among secular scientists; the key question is, how far can one drive that distinction, when it comes to assessing the relative validity of conclusions in both areas?

Ted

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jul 21 14:19:43 2009