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

George,

You are quite right forensic scientists do experiments when they act as experimental scientists to obtain data from experiments that has not been of interest to other experimental scientists. However, that is the additional data that they need and use to do their forensic science qua forensic scientists. Thus forensic scientists can increase the experimental tools that they have available to do their forensics, which is to establish the plausibility and probability of unique, historical events.

Moorad
________________________________
From: George Murphy [GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 9:19 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad; Kirk Bertsche
Cc: Iain Strachan; Dehler, Bernie; ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Forensic scientists do experiments with carcasses of animals like pigs & dogs, leaving them in different conditions to learn about rates of decay, the way different insects will deposit eggs & times it takes larvae to develop, &c. They have to generalize those results to, among other things, apply them to human corpses (since doing the same experiments with them gets into ethical problems.) You can read about some of this in a book Like Robert Mann (not the physicist!), Forensic Detective (Ballantine, 2006). Ch.3 ("The Body Farm"). Others do physics experiments to learn what happens in car crashes, &c.

So yes, forensic scientists do experiments & make use of what they learn from them in their investigations. In that sense it's an "experimental science."

But the fundamental question isn't how you classify the science but whether or not it is able to tell us true things about the world. & forensic science can. Similarly, the "historical sciences" can.

Give it up. Distinctions between "experimental" and "historical" science, or "operational" and "origins" science are just smokescreens to keep from having to come to grips with evolution. Evolution, including human evolution, has happened. There are good ways to deal with it theologically. Let's stop wasting time.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <alexanian@uncw.edu<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>>
To: "Kirk Bertsche" <Bertsche@aol.com<mailto:Bertsche@aol.com>>; "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com<mailto:GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>>
Cc: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com<mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>>; "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>; "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto:asa@calvin.edu>>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: [asa] (testing evolution) TE/EC Response - ideology according to Terry

Experimental scientists do experiments that can be generalized into laws of Nature. What experiments do forensic scientists do? What are the generalizations in forensics science? I cannot think of any besides profiling.

Moorad
________________________________________
From: Kirk Bertsche [Bertsche@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:42 PM
To: George Murphy
Cc: Alexanian, Moorad; Iain Strachan; Dehler, Bernie; ASA
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<mailto:alexanian@uncw.edu>>
> To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com<mailto:igd.strachan@gmail.com>>; "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com<mailto:bernie.dehler@intel.com>>
> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu<mailto: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.
Received on Tue Jul 21 22:40:25 2009