Historical Science and Observational Science

[T.j_Runyon]

@PDPrice

Evolution requires deep time

Not according to AIG. 40
Million years of canid evolution is squeezed into 4,000 years

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

Which doesn’t mean that atheism requires evolution. It means atheism is bolstered by evolution, in an intellectual sense.

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

Then this is the article for you!

Why do you keep linking to Creation.com instead of anything from the primary scientific literature? CMI ranks right there with AIG as being as anti-science a website as they come. Like AIG it’s almost impossible to find a single article there without at least one misunderstanding, misrepresentation, or outright lie about the evolutionary sciences.

[Faizal_Ali]

@PDPrice

Evolution requires deep time, and atheism requires evolution.

Among the first people to determine the multi-billion year timeline were geologists who were not atheists, for the most part, and had no particular reason to validate evolution. What was it about their worldview, in your opinion, that necessitated that they believe in billions of years?

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Faizal_Ali

Among the first people to determine the multi-billion year timeline were geologists who were not atheists, for the most part, and had no particular reason to validate evolution.

They were secularists trying to swing the pendulum away from belief in the Bible. Look:

Charles Lyell free science from Moses

[Faizal_Ali]

@T_aquaticus

I would also point to this quote from Cleland:

Many scientists believe that there is a uniform, interdisciplinary method for the practice of good science. The paradigmatic examples, however, are drawn from classical experimental science. Insofar as historical hypotheses cannot be tested in controlled laboratory settings, historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided. First, the reputed superiority of experimental research is based upon accounts of scientific methodology (Baconian inductivism or falsificationism) that are deeply flawed, both logically and as accounts of the actual practices of scientists. Second, although there are fundamental differences in methodology between experimental scientists and historical scientists, they are keyed to a pervasive feature of nature, a time asymmetry of causation. As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.–Dr. Carol Cleland
Historical and operational science - RationalWiki

How odd. That has Dr. Cleland saying exactly the opposite of what @PDPrice says she believes. I wonder who I should believe regarding Dr. Cleland’s true views: Dr. Cleland herself, or the YEC?

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Faizal_Ali

How odd. That has Dr. Cleland saying exactly the opposite of what @PDPrice says she believes

Why are you making that allegation?

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

Why are you making that allegation?

It’s not an allegation. Cleland’s words are right there

“As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained.” –Dr. Carol Cleland

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

They were secularists trying to swing the pendulum away from belief in the Bible. Look:

Nothing in that article suggests that Lyell had a specific anti-biblical motivation. It just suggests he understood that his findings about geology contradicted the current interpretations of scripture and yet promoted them anyway.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@evograd

Nothing in that article suggests that Lyell had a specific anti-biblical motivation.

I think when Lyell said that he was going to “free science from Moses”, that is a pretty clear anti-Biblical motivation.

[Faizal_Ali]

Ah, yes. My mistake. You were citing her in support of your position that there are two forms of science, but you never said that she does NOT support your claim that historical science is somehow inferior and less reliable than experimental science and, in fact, directly refutes that idea. For some reason, you conveniently neglected to mention this. Just a completely honest oversight, I am sure.

[Faizal_Ali]

@PDPrice

I think when Lyell said that he was going to “free science from Moses”, that is a pretty clear anti-Biblical motivation.

That does not follow. If people are holding to false beliefs because they refuse to abandon a book they think was written by Moses, it’s understandable that a competent scientist would seek to free science from this. The only bias evident is that in favour of doing science correctly.

Again: Why did all these geologists, mostly observant Christians by and large, decide to misinterpret and misrepresent the evidence (in your view) to support a world that is billions of years old? What worldview did they hold that necessitated this?

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@PDPrice

I think when Lyell said that he was going to “free science from Moses”, that is a pretty clear anti-Biblical motivation.

If he had said that before beginning any of his geological investigation, I’d agree with you, but he didn’t, did he? This is a statement made after he’d already performed a lot of his research that led him to the conclusion that the “Mosaical” view of geology was incorrect. If I found out that a particular view of history was wrong, I’d want to free science from it too, that doesn’t mean I have some kind of predetermined agenda.

[PDPrice (Paul Price)]

@Faizal_Ali

If people are holding to false beliefs because they refuse to abandon a book they think was written by Moses, it’s understandable that a competent scientist would seek to free science from this.

I thought you were arguing that Lyell was a Christian who believed the Bible (or maybe that was somebody else), but your answer here is incompatible with that notion.

[Faizal_Ali]

@PDPrice

I thought you were arguing that Lyell was a Christian who believed the Bible (or maybe that was somebody else), but your answer here is incompatible with that notion.

I have no clue whatsoever what Lyell’s beliefs were. There is nothing incompatible in what I wrote, unless you are going to insist, against all reason, that the only way to “believe the Bible” is with YEC.

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

I thought you were arguing that Lyell was a Christian who believed the Bible (or maybe that was somebody else), but your answer here is incompatible with that notion

Amazing you’ve been able to determine so many of the Christian scientists in the 18th and 19th centuries who did work disproving a young Earth were secretly atheists out to destroy the Bible.

[evograd (Blogging Graduate Student)]

@Faizal_Ali

You were citing her in support of your position that there are two forms of science, but you never said that she does NOT support your claim that historical science is somehow inferior and less reliable than experimental science and, in fact, directly refutes that idea.

He also falsely claimed for a while that she believed historical science wasn’t empirical.

[Faizal_Ali]

How odd. YEC’s base their entire worldview on a book, that they are convinced they have read and understood correctly. Shouldn’t they then be better at understanding the things they read?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@PDPrice

I appreciate your interest in the essay, but I want to be careful not to run afoul of any legal or ethical considerations in distributing that copyrighted content online for free.

You won’t do either if you send it privately. There’s a messaging system here.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Timothy_Horton

Why do you keep linking to Creation.com instead of anything from the primary scientific literature?

I think that @PDPrice is afraid to go to the primary scientific literature. At some level, he knows he can’t accommodate the evidence.

And when I write “go to the primary scientific literature,” I mean the evidence, not ignoring figures/tables and pulling quotes from the Discussion section.