Historical Science and Observational Science

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@PDPrice

She [Cleland] acknowledges that biases influence scientific paradigms, but fails to apply that to her own ideas of evolution and deep time. She makes the mistake of thinking that pieces of evidence can be clearly and objectively regarded as ‘smoking guns’ that clinch a case in favor of one particular hypothesis.

I don’t see any evidence that she thinks that. I suggest that you stick to what she wrote instead of claiming to know her thoughts.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@PDPrice

Faizal: And, in the above example, we cannot view the victim alive and being stabbed in the heart. That is also a “story about the past.” But we know what happened. It is not just a guess that is likely to be wrong.

No, you believe you know what happened. In this case, you are very probably correct, but still it is only a probability. The further back in time you go, the harder it becomes to assign a probability of knowledge.

You keep eliding the fact that the more evidence you have, the easier it becomes to assign a probability of knowledge.

That does, however, explain why it appears that your strategy is to avoid the evidence.

[John_Harshman]

@PDPrice

Evolution requires deep time

Then again, deep time long pre-dates evolution in science, and atheism pre-dates deep time. So you seem to be implying backwards causation.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Timothy_Horton

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

And we also know that evolutionary science in no way precludes experimental tests of hypotheses:

Can an Arbitrary Sequence Evolve Towards Acquiring a Biological Function? -...

[Timothy_Horton]

@PDPrice

Ever heard of science magazines, etc. where people write articles dealing with scientific topics?

I’v never heard of or seen an author of any descriptive science article be so afraid to address questions about what they wrote than you are. You’re pretty good at rote repetition of the standard YEC catch-phrases but when people ask to to think and explain for yourself…whoops.

[T_aquaticus]

@swamidass

@PDPrice calls himself a “Biblical” YEC, not a scientific YEC.

I would agree. The majority of his articles over at CMI are not dealing with the science directly. What science there is represents more of a toe in the water than a full dive.

Because I couldn’t help myself, I did read through parts of the article " Our post-critical thinking society". The irony was too powerful to ignore.

Now that’s very interesting: apparently, we have biased human perception, yet scientists are able to slowly break down this illusion. But are these scientists not, themselves, human ? If human perception is biased, then we are always going to be doomed, unless we can find some kind of non-human source of truth to correct and inform our biased perception. By the way, that is exactly what Scripture is!
Our post-critical thinking society

Man, he came so close, and then veered away from the answer at the very last second. If only there were this method that helped us break through the biases of human perception and intuition . . . . what could it be . . .

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@swamidass

For him, it has little to do with the scientific evidence, and everything to do with how he reads Scripture.

@PDPrice

No, just a lot of personal experiences and various pieces of evidence that I feel are best explained in that way. No one ‘smoking gun’.

@swamidass

He probably doesn’t know much better.

Shouldn’t Christianity teach him to be much better?

[Timothy_Horton]

@swamidass

He probably doesn’t know much better. But attacking it head on doesn’t do much good. Remember, it is not enough to be right, you also have to be trusted. If you flip people into fight-or-flight, the chances of building trust plummet, and the chances of persuading them of anything evaporate.

Can’t speak for anyone else but I personally don’t care if he changes his anti-science viewpoints or not. I just want to make sure correct and accurate scientific information is put out there for others to read as a counter to the illiterate propaganda from places like CMI and AIG.

@swamidass

Try kindness instead. Far more persuasive.

IMHO he’s been shown much more kindness than his belligerent and holier-than-thou attitude warrants.