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

FYI, at the request of the author, Physics Today has made this
article available to all. You can find it at
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_62/iss_7/8_1.shtml

Kirk

On Jul 21, 2009, at 7:07 PM, Randy Isaac wrote:

> Some of you may have read Helen Quinn's article in the current
> issue of Physics Today entitled "What is Science". I'd send a link
> but it's restricted to subscribers. I have the pdf and could send
> it to anyone who wants it. The file is copy restricted so I can't
> copy and paste it. Helen is a theoretical physicist at SLAC with a
> strong interest in physics education. Her paragraph on the
> "forensic science" as Ted called it, is nicely written:
>
> "Much of science seeks to explain observations of the current state
> of the natural world by developing an evidence-based history of how
> that situation arose, much as a detective reconstructs a crime.
> Computer programs that can simulate the progression of the system--
> or some aspects of it--over time are important tools in such
> science and can be powerful means to predict outcomes. The
> developed history must be consistent not only with all that is
> known about the system in question but also with all that is
> understood about processes that occur within the system.
> Geoscience, climate science, astrophysics, cosmology, and
> evolutionary biology all use that important history-building
> approach to develop major parts of their theories."
>
> I like her phrase "evidence-based history". It's all an important
> part of science.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Davis" <TDavis@messiah.edu>
> To: "Iain Strachan" <igd.strachan@gmail.com>; "Bernie Dehler"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com>; "Moorad Alexanian" <alexanian@uncw.edu>
> Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:18 PM
> Subject: 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.
>
>
> 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 Mon Jul 27 16:58:31 2009