Evangelical Parallel Universes

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@johnZ

so evolutionists do not use or accept historical science methods which do not agree with their own preconceptions, such as evaluating the amount of salt in the ocean, or the rates of erosion of cliff faces near the ocean,

Scientists do not disregard the amount of salt in the ocean because it contradicts their preconceptions. They disregard the rate of change of salt in the ocean because the uncertainties and variabilities involved in this method are far too large to give any reliable indication of age. The overall amount of salt in the oceans is very difficult to measure accurately, and the rate of change even more so. It is highly sensitive to global and regional environmental and climatic conditions and can not realistically be assumed to have been constant historically.

By contrast, conventional dating methods are based on high-precision measurements (typically better than ±1%), on processes that have been shown both theoretically and experimentally to be highly resistant to influences by environmental conditions, and that have been subjected to numerous cross-checks with other dating methods to ensure that any underlying preconditions have been met.

[TedDavis (Dr. Ted Davis)]

@johnZ

I’m wondering if you understand what these professions actually do… I mean a plant breeder is utilizing basic science, whether through selection for heritable traits, examination of genomes, genetic engineering, etc. One of the earliest plant breeders, Mendel did indeed discover principles of breeding, and they have been doing so since.

Agreed, John, on plant breeding. But, I’ve met dozens of engineers, physicians, and IT people who seem not to understand how historical science is actually done, in terms of testing hypotheses against present and future facts and assembling a coherent picture of many disparate facts that otherwise remain unconnected. They will just state that we can’t test the unwitnessed past, and that’s just ludicrous. Some hypotheses about that might indeed be untestable (at least presently), but many claims are testable even if we can’t do controlled experiments. Cosmologists do this all the time, when new data conflict with hitherto accepted hypotheses. Ditto geologists. The Alvarez hypothesis for dinosaur extinction is a lovely example: they didn’t know about the big crater near the Yucatan when they proposed it, and it turned out to be the smoking gun. Whether or not that impact was the main or sole cause of the extinction, it darn sure explains why the iridium layer is located precisely at that point in geological history. The coherence is so beautiful that if all the dates came in under 10,000 years (say) no creationist would question it.

[TedDavis (Dr. Ted Davis)]

@johnZ

“The Genesis Flood” is largely out of date, just like Darwin is out of date, and even neo-Darwinism is out of date.

Agreed with the fact, but not the spirit, of your statement. My point (in context) is that there’s such an enormous gulf between the historical sciences and the “operational” or “empirical” sciences, that it’s fine to question the validity of any conclusion in the historical sciences that gives a result implying that something in the universe has existed longer than a few thousand years. That attitude is all through Whitcomb & Morris, and I could easily produce very recent examples that are even more strongly stated. See the ending of this column for just such a case: Old-Earth (Progressive) Creationism: History and Beliefs - BioLogos
In Barrick’s opinion the Bible (i.e. his specific interpretation of it) trumps absolutely everything else. End of conversation. This is consistent with my claim about a total rejection of historical sciences as producing genuine knowledge.

[johnZ]

@TedDavis

I don’t accept literature as an historical science, but let’s not quibble over that. Carbon dating and tree rings certainly are. Tree ring dating is more precise and more accurate;

Obviously literature is historical science… its exactly why the dead sea scrolls were so important to the evaluation of literature. In addition, the examination of literature, whether hieroglyphics or Josephus or anything else, is used to learn about history, and is used as confirmation of carbon dating. Carbon dating is science, but it can be affected by known things, such as nuclear explosions. If literature identifies dramatic nuclear activity, or other potential global phenomena which could affect the C12/C14 ratio, then the carbon dating method will take that into account. Tree ring dating has some validity, but correlating the rings of one tree to the rings of another is a dangerous exercise. The variability even at one location for living trees is large due to differences in moisture microclimates, and correlating trees where one does not know the microclimate is speculative at best. The potential repeatability of a weather/climate sequence cannot be discounted either. And the oldest living trees are almost 5000 years old.

@TedDavis

I’ve met dozens of engineers, physicians, and IT people who seem not to understand how historical science is actually done, in terms of testing hypotheses against present and future facts

That’s sad. But maybe they understand it better than you think. Maybe they understand the difference between historical science and plant breeding, for example. Or the difference between historical science and putting a man on the moon. Or the difference between historical science and discovering a new anti-biotic. Maybe they understand the difference quite well.

@TedDavis

My point (in context) is that there’s such an enormous gulf between the historical sciences and the “operational” or “empirical” sciences, that it’s fine to question the validity of any conclusion in the historical sciences

Even in the operational sciences, questions are raised everyday. New discoveries about how to capture CO2 for example, or how to utilize methane, or how to fight cancer, or what is the best nutrient balance for out diet, or does coffee help or harm, and to what degree. There is nothing wrong with questioning historical science paradigms, assumptions or conclusions, especially when the raionalizations for it appear to circular reasoning, adhoc arguments, or “just-so” stories. Even asking the hard questions should not be a problem if it is nothing more than science. It is only when historical science takes on a religious fervor, that questions about scientific data, about interpretation, and about contrary conclusions are not appreciated.