Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

I consider the false distinction of forensic and experimental science more
than wrong-headed. It is utterly false and has never been presented with any
competence or skill.

It is simply a pseudo-intellectual ploy to make YEC claims to have some
apparent plausibility

I shall say no more

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk Bertsche" <Bertsche@aol.com>
To: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu>; "Iain Strachan"
<igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; "ASA"
<asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according
to Terry

>I agree with George's perspective: the distinction between "experimental"
>and "forensic" science is wrong-headed. I do not hear scientists making
>this distinction; it seems to come from non- scientists who wish to reject
>the conclusions of "forensic" science while accepting "experimental"
>science.
>
> This distinction often comes with some assumptions, e.g.
> 1) "forensic" science relies on observations which are more indirect and
> more inferential than "experimental" science, so "forensic" science is
> less reliable
> 2) "forensic" science can only rely on "extant physical data"; new
> experiments and new data are not possible
>
> Neither assumption is true, in general. Some "experimental" science
> (e.g. particle physics) is even more indirect and inferential than much
> of "forensic" science. "Forensic" science allows for new observations of
> the past to test theories. Furthermore, with newer and better telescopes
> we can look back further in time and gather new "forensic" data.
>
> Kirk
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2009, at 10:55 AM, George Murphy wrote:
>
>> For starters, I think that your characterization of forensic science is
>> wrong. Forensic scientists do not simply "suppose a scenario." They
>> collect physical evidence from a scene and from it, using theories with
>> some degree of support, try to reconstruct events.
>>
>> More broadly, the whole attempt to distinguish sharply "experimental"
>> from "historical," "forensic" &c science is wrong. Of course there are
>> differences but they are differences of degree, not clear-cut
>> qualitative distinctions.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexanian, Moorad"
>> <alexanian@uncw.edu>
>> To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Dehler, Bernie"
>> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
>> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:53 AM
>> Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology
>> according to Terry
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Moorad
>>> ________________________________________
>
>
> 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.
Received on Tue Jul 21 16:48:44 2009