I cannot send you a copy of the paper because it is behind an academic pay wall but I am quite sure there will be responses to it soon.
My take:
I wont comment on most of the science daily article, other than that I wondered about the assumptions for the new isochron method. Obtaining 9 of 11 samples on a similar isochron line would seem to be very nice, but if all the rocks had been buried and reburied at the same time, we would expect a similar isochron line, even though the radio-activity had been interrupted. This would misinterpret the date. At least in my cursory understanding, this seems to be so.
The problems with most of the old Au skeletons, is that they can only be differentiated on homology, which cannot be verified by genetic analysis… since they are more than 100,000 years old. This means that to call them different species is somewhat arbitrary and tenuous… at least so it seems to me. I also find it interesting how quickly conclusions are drawn on such a small sample size of skeletons. There is certainly a dramatic lack of certainty in this field.
There is no certainty in any science discipline. That is the nature of science. One of the things about systematics is that it deals with derived or retained traits. Yes, it is quite true that we have only one skeleton, but its traits are not illusory. They are there. Does it represent a different species? You are correct, we have no way of knowing for sure. We base our tentative conclusions on a constellation of traits that form a crown group of organisms. This skeleton has only some of those but not all of them, therefore it is not part of the crown group. Where it fits is not clear. The authors are clear about that. As far as the isochron dating is concerned, I don’t have the expertise to evaluate the arguments, but I have no trouble believing a professional geologist (and also a Christian) like Davis Young when he argues that the method is sound.
The certainty within science disciplines is vastly different depending on the discipline. Natural sciences tend to be much less certain than physical and chemical sciences. The certainty of space travel science and mathematics is much different than the certainty of antibiotics or the uncertainty of social science. Paleogenetics and historic science are the least certain of all; in fact, it is more likely that you will see the words “probably” or “perhaps” or “possibly” used in drawing conclusions for historic science than any words of certainty.
Other than that I agree with your points, except that christians are as susceptible as anyone else to paradigm thinking. If that was not true, then all christian scientists would agree with each other, and they don’t.
Certainty is never a given in science but there is a persistent misunderstanding among the Christian community that evolutionary theory is less “certain” than other theories. It just ain’t so. Christians don’t all agree with each other in much the same way that other people don’t. It is just the nature of the disagreements.
I don’t think it is a good idea to use a slur to defend from the statement that evolutionary science is less certain than other science. It has nothing to do with a “christian community” analysis, and has to do with the inability to duplicate or replicate what happened in the past. It is not dissimilar from comparing social sciences to physical sciences. Social sciences are also much less certain, because there is a reduced ability to control outside factors, or to set good “controls” in an experiment. It is also often difficult in some cases of correlation studies, to determine which is the cause, and which is the effect. In more complicated models, constant feedback mechanisms add to the difficulty. It is not only the type of science which is less certain, but also the particular complexity of the theory which makes the results less certain. This has nothing to do with any misunderstandings, and everything to do with the real limitations of different types of science. It just aint so that all uncertainties are created equal.
While it is perhaps overreach to lump the “Christian community” in one group (although that has largely been my experience with the vast majority of Christians that I know) it in no way constitutes a slur to say they misunderstand evolution. A slur is something that damages someone’s reputation. I did nothing of the kind. As far as the “inability” to recreate past events, that sounds a little bit too much like Ken Ham-speak. The aspects of evolutionary theory do not make it less certain than any of the other hard sciences. As Todd Wood points out:
"It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well."
The uncertainties of evolutionary theory are no greater than those of cell theory, gravitational theory or quantum theory.
Okay James. I think you misunderstand the difference between sciences that deal with repeatable testable events, and those that don’t. In addition, biological sciences are also somewhat less certain than physical sciences. That does not mean that good work cannot be done in biological sciences; but it does mean that the bar for repeatability, controls, repetitions is higher. The variability in biology and nature is greater. The variability in social sciences is higher still. And the variability or uncertainty in paleo-historical science is even greater. Examining the speed of a bullet under consistent conditions is much simpler ( or if not simpler, at least more certain) than examining the response of plants to fertility or to disease under natural conditions. Examining the age of fossils which cannot even be dated directly but only indirectly within a wide range of error, and which no longer contain dna, and then trying to extrapolate genetics or descent, is even more uncertain. This has absolutely nothing to do with any misunderstandings by any particular community, but is a simple result of the limitations of the data.
When you say “too much like Ken Hamm speak” you are again unconsciously using adhominem slurs to deny the reality. There are many besides Ken Ham who identify this reality. It doesn’t matter who speaks it, it is a simple reality. Maybe it is sometimes overplayed, but it is a reality nevertheless, and so it changes the nature of the investigation. Some things can be repeated; somethings cannot. Some things happen differently in nature than in the lab in a controlled environment. These are scientific realities.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.