The Reliability of Historical Science


(system) #1

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://biologos.org/blogs/deborah-haarsma-the-presidents-notebook/the-reliability-of-historical-science

(George Brooks) #2

God makes it rain. God makes water evaporate. God includes natural laws in his tool bag of Creation.

Sometimes Young Earth Creationists forget that God knows science.


#3

I love this new strategy by BioLogos to give due focus over a month on a particular topic. As I think about objections to EC, one of the common counters is something like, “How do we know physical constants were the same in the past?” Perhaps it’d be helpful to have an article or two on how constants (e.g., speed of light and other rates, such as radiometric dating) are actually testable and/or why it’s reasonable to assume present rates should be assumed for the past. Or perhaps some helpful links for accessible work already done on this.

BTW, I appreciate the acknowledgment that there is a distinction between various types of science (e.g., historical vs. experimental/observational), but the difference is not quite the same as some organizations make it. I think it’s a mistake to act like there’s no distinction, but better to show that the difference has more to do with, e.g., the availability of the data and how observation of the data is done…yet the scientific method is consistent for all. (The same applies for micro vs. macro evolution–no reason to deny the distinction, but best to show that the distinction is not what others think it is.)

I pray that more grants can be obtained to keep the likes of Venema and Davis fully engaged!