OPERATIONS vs ORIGINS (HISTORICAL) science
You wrote:-
The clear differentiator here is operational versus historical science. It certainly makes sense that scientists can respect each other's work in operational sciences when outcomes are less dissimilar than with historical science.
You make it appear that there is a sharp division in science. Is there?
Exactly what is the difference between the two sciences and what is it about them that draws this sharp distinction?
Given that some religious groups would argue that mainstream interpretations are kaput with respect to some operational sciences – e.g. mental health research vs demonic possession or spherical earth vs flat earth, whence the point you make now? Given that much historical science is accepted on naturalistic terms by both YECs and the mainstream, what exactly is the point you are making?
With respect to this notion of “dissimilar outcomes”, exactly what are you saying? With this notion of “less dissimilar outcomes” you appear to be claiming that there is a point at which you ignore the data and the argument and concentrate on the fact that two sides are in dispute. If so, and there is a point at which data and argument can be ignored, then what is this point?
”MAINSTREAM” = Christian, Hindu, Kalathumpian, Atheist, Agnostic, Male, Female …
I wrote:-
I could continue but hopefully my point is made. You will find a lot of insults between creationists and the mainstream at the level of these bulletin boards – whether the correspondents are ordinary people or scientists. However, have a look at the research papers offered by both camps. Papers offered by the mainstream:-
a) are constrained by observations,
b) are clear about what is speculation and what is not,
c) stick to the point they are making. They do not “prove” their points by taking cheap shots at their opponents. They make their case by collecting evidence and arguing from that,
d) Offer logical and reasoned arguments for the point they are wishing to make,
e) operate within a consistent framework – the same framework as the rest of science operates in
You responded:-
To which mainstream do you refer? Certainly not to the greater group of male and female scientists belonging to the human race. A race with good and noble, and lying and deceitful alike.
The mainstream is that group of theist (Christian (evangelical, conservative, liberal …), Hindu, Muslim, Jewish …), atheist, agnostic; male or female – scientists who accept in one form or another all of mainstream science ranging from quantum theory, to the germ theory of disease, to modern cosmology (Big Bang or otherwise), to the ancient earth, to evolution (macro and micro). That is, it is the group of people who apply the same naturalistic metaphysics and axioms and the same scientific methodology to whatever material system (process or structure) they are studying.
You continued:-
This assessment is far too utopian for what we see in the world around us. And one doesn't have only to look for Christians to see individuals with motive to further their scientific ideas. Political, social, governmental and corporate agendas do much to sway individuals one way or another. "Publish or Perish" as has been discussed elsewhere on this board, certainly doesn't help to preclude bad science from hitting the journals.
I agree with this, but sooner or later, notwithstanding the pressures, motives and human foibles, the validity of a claim has to rest on evidence and argument.
You did the very thing I suggested you not do. You argued on personality grounds. I said compare research with research. I wrote “compare the research papers offered by both camps”.
Do you really doubt everything you hear because of what you just wrote? If so then why do you accept anything? If you do accept some things, then why write what you just did? It is “easy” enough the get AiG articles and the mainstream articles being critiqued and check these things out. (As I have said, the one problem is that it can take a lot of work to understand a mainstream research article. But the effort is worth it.)
You continued:-
Discovery is a hallmark of scientific sage-dom.
And so it should be. Solid performance in any field of human endeavor – sports, politics, evangelism – is a doorway to “sage-dom”.
You wrote:-
And how about the "limelight"? Do scientists need to submit good science to make it into the spotlight? Of course not.
Again quite true? But exactly what is your point in writing this? Bad science sooner or later gets weeded out. Sometimes it happens sooner (Cold fusion – this has only a minority of defenders these days, a notorious bird fossil from China). Sometimes it happens later (Margaret Mead and Samoa – although this is still hotly debated, Piltdown Man) Scientists have as many prima donnas as does the rest of society. As with anything else these prima donnas can make the spotlight and stay there for a long time. At other times they fall very quickly.
However, it also often happens that good science can also make it to the spotlight as soon as it appears. (And it is even true that some prima donnas are brilliant researchers who actually present good arguments.)
This too is no different to the rest of society.
Your argument is simply based on an (unfortunate) fact of life.
But again you make the exceptions appear the norm without offering any more than assertion and guilt by association. Is all of sports corrupt because drug-taking is “rife”? Perhaps. But, to go beyond speculation and argue you case, you have to demonstrate that wide spread drug taking is serious enough to call the whole system into doubt. For all you know it might occur enough to be a problem that is not beyond redemption.
For all you know the word “rife” may be a complete exaggeration. Assertion and guilt by association do not make for sound argument.
As with an earlier argument of yours though, you appear to be saying “one bit of bad science – all bad science”. But the world is not that simple – as you just finished saying. So why argue in the manner you do?
If science is methodologically sloppy then demonstrate that this is so. Argument by exception, assertion, and association do not give you a sound basis.
Then you said:-
They need only be controversial, revolutionary, whacky or a host of other things which can cover much of the "mainstream" without necessarily touching any of the good scientists.
Again what are you arguing? There appears to be a confusion of concepts here. Newton’s theory of gravity was both controversial and revolutionary. Many thought it wacky. Action at a distance made no sense. So Newton should not have been in the spotlight when he announced his theory of gravity?
Allow me to take your argument on face value. Are you really arguing that only the wacky ones get heard?
There are several things wrong with this:-
1) The wacky ones are not the only ones to get heard. Often the good ones get heard also.
2) Often the wacky ones do not get heard – simply because the good ones speak up – quickly.
3) Good scientific ideas are judged by scientists as “good” or “bad”. That the experts deem ideas to be “good” or “bad” is not at all unusual. Generals generally judge military campaigns. Doctors generally judge good medical practices. Sports people generally judge who is the best. The public may have its ideas but in all fields of human endeavor, the experts have their own opinions. Hence even it the wacky ones always grab the spotlight, as the years pass, those who work in the labs, go out into the field and write the papers – soon cast a critical eye over the supposed revolution and it disappears.
Sometimes this does not happen – and sloppy science can become the norm. Then your point is well made. However, by concluding that because this might happen, or does happen, therefore it always happens is simply an unsupported assertion.
4) Wacky movie stars “always” get the spotlight. Therefore no good movies come out of America? No sensible movie star ever gets the spotlight? Are these statements of mine credible, partially credible or exaggerations?
I wrote:-
Papers offered by creationists:-
a) are often unconstrained speculations – e.g. “God could have” type statements,
b) mix speculation with fact and do not distinguish between them,
c) do not argue a case on its own merits. Often they make their case by taking cheap shots at their opponents – the mainstream,
d) do not offer logical and reasoned arguments. Often their arguments are misrepresentations of the mainstream, use double standards, shift the goal posts etc.
e) do not operate within a consistent framework. Naturalism is decried when YEC religious sensibilities are offended. Naturalism is enthusiastically embraced when religion is not offended. When offense occurs, often a mixture of naturalism and supernaturalism results in which there are no clear guidelines as to why the shift is made, other than the fact that religious belief has been offended. The YEC rationale for this peculiar “science” is inconsistent, contradictory and often incoherent. (A good example of this would be Ken Ham’s popular little book The Lie: Evolution (7))
You responded:-
As sweepingly general as this is, I think it's simply a personality thing, and must be rejected with the former appraisal of the mainstream scientific community as too subjective.
Yes it is sweepingly general.
However, I engaged YEC scientists all those years ago, in part to see how good it really was, considering that religious fundamentalism had played a large part in my formative years.
Yes, I am subjective but given that I have compared YEC philosophies of science with mainstream philosophies of science, and YEC methodology with that of the mainstream by actually engaging YEC scientists, then hopefully I have demonstrated my case with both evidence and argument based on that evidence.
The mainstream may be subjective (a normal human trait) but generally it is not hopelessly blinded by that subjectivity. Given that it is on the butt-end of YEC scientific methodology, it ought to know.
And by “butt-end of YEC scientific methodology”, I am not talking about the insults and innuendo that pass between opponents in this battle. I am talking about the nuts and bolts of how research is done and the resulting argument presented. There is a big difference.
It would be good if you would avail yourself to some modern books on ideas as to what science is, and following that, read some of the research literature on the topics I have written about above.
SUMMARY
It is not necessarily good argument to substitute a word in another’s argument and think that a valid point has been made.
To confuse mainstream offence at YEC science with inconsistent application of metaphysics is essentially the same as arguing that Christian offence at idolatry is the same as inconsistent religious practice. That is, if a mainstream scientist takes offence at YEC then he/she is really switching metaphysics then analogously, a Christian taking offence at idolatry is the same as that person worshipping another god.
Not at all.
Nor is it good to argue from exception or association. If human foibles are the only real basis for comparing YEC and mainstream then I am surprised that you even accept that the earth is spherical given that some Biblical literalists argue otherwise and that both groups share the same foibles. Whether the earth is flat or spherical relies on observation and sound argument – surely. The fact that the mainstream calls flat earthers “wacky” and that flat earthers claim that only they do “true science”, has little to do with it.
In science, evidence and sound argument are generally the key to the acceptance of ideas – not withstanding the fact that all scientists have faults and at times, both individually and collectively they can be fooled and deluded. If you maintain that this puts all ideas on an equal footing then I am surprised that you accept any scientific theory. Do you? What about that list I supplied way back near the beginning?
Do not confuse mainstream scientist mouthing off with a piece of sloppy YEC research. Mouthing off may be bad manners but it is not sloppy research.
You can only compare research with research. That is, compare the writings, arguments and methods of:-
1) A&H with Livingstone and the mainstream;
2) Williams with Compton and Pidgeon
3) Oard with Meese, Alley
et al.
4) Davies and Sarfati with Clark and Casswell.
Do not get me wrong either. I am not denying that scientists do not have foibles which often interfere with sound judgment. Nor am I arguing that as a group they cannot be deluded. I can think of one field, which spans both “operations” science and “origins” science, for which a strong case could be made for self delusion. Anthropology appears to be undergoing a lot of criticism these days. Much of this comes from anthropologists themselves who appear to make a good argument that the field has, for decades, been overtaken by wishful thinkers and sloppy methologists.
But as a science, evolutionary biology and evolutionists do not appear to warrant the criticisms you make. YEC certainly does warrant the criticisms I make.
Well Nikolayevich, this has been a very long posting. You may or may not care to comment on all of it or a part of it.
Hopefully I have been able to put more flesh around my argument and better make my point.
Regards, Roland
REFERENCES:
(1) Ham, Ken. “The Lie: Evolution”. Answers In Genesis Ministries. 2001
(2) “Hemi” – reply to rjw on “No Answers In Genesis” board, September 11, 2004
(3) “Jorge” to “sylas” on “Theology Web”, March 16, 2004.
(4) “Jorge” – reply to rjw on “Theology Web”, March 17, 2004
(5) “Vxer1000” – reply to rjw on “Christian Forums”, October 7, 2004
(6) “Paul” to unknown respondent on “No Answers In Genesis” board, August 22, 2004.
(7) “Chris” to unknown respondent on “No Answers In Genesis” board, October 14, 2003.
(8) Williams, Alexander, “Flaws in dating the earth as ancient”,
Creation Ex Nihlo 18(1):14, Dec. 1995-Feb. 1996
(9) Compston W and Pidgeon, R.T.,
Nature 321:766-769, 1986.
(11) Ham, Ken, “Searching for the ‘magic bullet’” in <i>Creation</i><b> 25</b>(2):34-37, March 2003
(12) Ham, Ken, “Creation: ‘where’s the proof?’” in <i>Creation</i><b> 22</b>(1):39-42, December 1999
(13) Austin, Steven A. and Humphreys, Russell D., “The Sea’s Missing Salt: A Dilemma for Evolutionists.”, in
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, 1990 Volume II. Creation Science Fellowship Inc., Pittsburgh, USA. Brooks, Christopher L., editor in chief.)
(14) Livingstone, D.A., "The sodium cycle and the age of the ocean",
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta,
27:1055-1069. 1963
(15) Oard, Michael, “Do Greenland ice cores show over one hundred thousand years of annual layers?”, in “Countering the Critics”,
TJ 15(3) 2001, pp39.
(16) Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Alley, R.B., Zielinski, G.A., Grootes, P.M., Ram, M., Taylor, K.C., Mayewski, P.A., and Bolzan, J.F., “The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: Methods and results.”
Journal of Geophysical Research 102(C12):26411-26423, 1997.
(17) Vardiman, Larry, “Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth”,
Impact No. 226, Institute for Creation Research, 1992.
(18) Alley
et al. “Visual-stratigraphic dating of the GISP2 ice core: Basis, reproducibility, and application.”
Journal of Geophysical Research,
102(C12):26367-26381, 1997.
(19) “Paul” to rjw on “No Answers in Genesis” board, September 8, 2004.
(20)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp
(21) Clark, D.H. and Caswell J.L.,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 174 267-305. 1976.
(22) Sarfati, J., "Exploding Stars Point To A Young Universe",
Creation,
19(3):46-48, June-August 1997.
(23) Davies, Keith, “Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy”,
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
(24) AiG "Ministry Newsbriefs" dated September 2000,
(25) Letter from R Watts to Editor of
Creation, AiG, 13-October-2000
(26) Letter from Dr J Sarfati to R Watts, 11-December-1997.