You must realize that nobody here except the committed YECs will accept this pronouncement. But I suspect that many will be curious about the evidence that led you to this conclusion. I for one can’t imagine what it could possibly be but am prepared for surprise. A new thread (which you can start yourself) would perhaps be more appropriate.
3 Likes
Importantly, “science” is a word which is often more about misleading people than about informing. Specifically, when huge differences in philosophical certainty and methodology are ignored, between historical and operational science. Or when the distinction is ignored entirely. I.e. Examining historical science
1 Like
Even if one accepts the distinction ( I do not ), at least scientists can base their historical extrapolation from observational science. When creationists state the “science is possible because God created an orderly universe of predictable laws” - that is what uniformitarianism is; the simple expectation that fire does not produce heat one day and cold the next. There is no observational science for increased radioactive decay under terrestrial conditions, hyper-evolution of your baramins, magnetic field flipping in the course of hours, plankton blooms building chalk cliffs and state wide formations of limestone, or water runoff from continental uplift producing sandstone arches. None of this nonsense has been ever been observed.
You reject historical science. You reject observational science. No difference.
6 Likes
Sorry, but that’s the typical kind of nonsense I’ve come to expect of clueless arts and humanities students who haven’t set foot in a laboratory since they finished compulsory science education at age sixteen, but who think nonetheless that they know more about science than “secular scientists” just because they’ve been spoon-fed stuff from Answers in Genesis or creation.com.
Science is a hands-on and practical endeavour that forms the backbone of people’s jobs. It is a set of rules, principles and methods that we have to get right in order to be able to program computers, build bridges, create vaccines, or find oil. It is a set of disciplines where getting things wrong has real-world consequences for which you would be held personally responsible.
Deuteronomy 25:13-16 does not draw a distinction between “historical” and “operational” sciences. They both have to obey the same rules and principles of accurate and honest weights and measures.
¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly.
8 Likes
I know this has been hashed out before on PS, so I won’t start a new thread. I know the distinction is held by some non-YECs (e.g., evolutionary creationists Haarsma and Haarsma). But it seems the YEC vs. EC understanding of the differences are quite distinct. The YECs takes it to the level of worldview/philosophical presuppositions (thus minimizing the strength of historical science) while others limit the distinction to the extent of available data and how one goes about testing the data, but otherwise the scientific methodology is the same (thus giving relatively equal strength to the outcomes). I just throw this out as a possible convo about terminology (and I’m happy to be corrected as a non-scientist. Though I’m drawing from a convo with YEC Todd Wood, who thought the normal YEC dichotomy was overblown.)
…then nothing else you have to say is going to be relevant. Anybody who doesn’t accept the distinction can’t discern anything of use in these debates. It’s like debating philosophy with somebody who doesn’t accept that Plato and Aristotle are different schools.
1 Like
I would conceivably try to correct you if it were clear what you’re saying.
[Insert picture of the Castle Bravo mushroom cloud]
There goes another irony meter factory.
3 Likes
I am debating with somebody who doesn’t accept that applications of science are based on generalizations of science.
Science is ultimately about finding underlying principles which can then be generalized within their defined domain. Those applications can be in regard to past, present, or future. That is how science makes progress and becomes engineering. Historical science is then just one applied generalization of scientifically established principle. Outside of YEC, t the observational vs historical science discussion is more about semantics and philosophical context than any substantial gulf in acceptance of what is known about the past.
Even if an argument can be mounted that there is a more fundamental distinction, there is a world of difference between the statement “we infer this occurred because we have observed the same phenomena”, and “we infer this occurred because, even though what we are proposing has never been observed, we do not care because we hold that no observation of science can ever violate scripture anyways.” I contend that the latter statement has no regard for science whatsoever. It constitutes wholesale dismissal.
If a conjecture concerning the past is based on scientific principle, at the minimum there is empirical demonstration that the idea is possible in nature. If the explanation disregards any such requirement, we have transgressed into a realm where the empirical has been waived. Stuff is just made up as desired. Observational science says the speed of light is constant? We will just make up our own! Nobody has observed the rate of nuclear decay vary? Who cares! There is no way to get to these alternative “interpretations” of the past without first dispensing with the requirement of observational science. Expressed differently, observational science constrains interpretations of the past, and flood geology scenarios are pretty much outside those constraints. It is an falsehood that “creationist and secular scientists just interpret the evidence differently” - the difference is that YEC disregards observational science.
And that is relevant.
10 Likes
When YECs claim a distinction between historical and observational science, they are not making something up, for the distinction is sometimes made in mainstream science. However, what YECs mean by the distinction and its implications is not what mainstream scientists (who use the distinction) do. So, I was trying to clarify (obviously not so clearly!) where the differences were between YECs and others when they note the distinction.
2 Likes
Why should anyone accept a “distinction” thought up by disingenuous YECs just to give them another excuse for ignoring scientific evidence they can’t explain? You’ve sure dodged more than your fair share.
1 Like
Once again, that is complete nonsense.
It’s not about “accepting the distinction.” It’s about not inventing distinctions where none exist.
“Operational science” and “historical science” have to obey the same rules. They both have to have accurate and honest weights and measures for starters. Which, by the way, is the number one area where YEC needs to clean up its act.
2 Likes
Hey, don’t forget, many creationists posit that we can’t really do science at all, because many of them claim the universe is actually anisotropic,
that the speed of light has varied a millionfold and hence the electric and magnetic permittivity and permeability of free space have also varied,
that radiometric decay rates and therefore fundamental forces of the universe have varied,
and that we can’t trust any science by other scientists because we are all in a grand conspiracy to deny God.
2 Likes
Not at all surprised by that.
I would partially consider that. The topic of age took a great deal of research (and prayer). I was uncertain about it when I set out to study it. But I learned so much. In the end, it turned out to be a very fulfilling endeavor. I really do believe it’s a better model, and enjoy sharing that with others.
On the other hand, I’ve lost interest in endless, generally fruitless debates. I’m not sure yet whether it would be worth it here. Even as I’m typing this, I see this thread has migrated to the old science-difference-denial topic. Plus I’m still new here, and should spend more time listening first.
3 Likes
Well, that’s because you’re taking that verse egregiously out of context. And obviously so. The verse is about not cheating people in transactions, not about historical/operational science.
False.
No, that’s operational science. Operational science inductively looks to establish the rules by which nature works in an ongoing manner. This requires assuming to begin with that such is even possible. If nature is unpredictable, then inductive reasoning is useless.
Historical science is an entirely different kind of process. It cannot be tested or repeated. All of its theories are underdetermined by the data available. One cannot know if the data are being rightly interpreted. The same set of data can be interpreted in more than one way.
Handwaving?
That’s not what we’re doing. We’re starting with Scripture as the highest epistemological authority, recognizing that historical science is fundamentally uncertain. We also recognize that the principle of uniformitarianism doesn’t hold throughout all time, because primarily of two massive supernatural disturbances: 1) Creation and 2) the Flood. Therefore all attempts to reconstruct history by extrapolation, while ignoring this biblical history, are bound to fail.
False. See below.
False again. Variances have been observed. However, not on the scale we would need to explain what we see. And that’s expected. After all, if we could observe these variances today, then that would just be more uniformitaranism, wouldn’t it? Creation and the Flood are not happening today. They will never happen again. You can’t reproduce their results in any lab.
We do have evidence that rates have changed in the past, however. That comes to us via the RATE research team, with helium leakage in zircons. I assume you’ve studied these results?
It’s relevant that, just as I predicted, you are displaying a severe lack of understanding in this debate, despite your being very vocal in it.
I handled this in my Journal article, which I’ve already linked to here. We do mean the same thing, but we deal with the implications more honestly.
No point in debating the lower half of somebody’s torso while the rest of them is stuck in the sand.
This video explains the physics rather clearly. I see no indication it’s made by creationists, either.
1 Like
I know of no such instance. What do you have? Historical science is, after all, observational. How other than by observation can one gather data?
There is such a thing as historical science, but what isn’t historical science doesn’t have a name that I know of, though paleontologists use the term “neontology” to refer to biology that isn’t paleontology. And there is sometimes a distinction made between experimental and observational science, and between empirical and theoretical science, but these are quite separate things too. I am not familiar with anyone proposing a difference between historical and observational science. The creationist term is “operational” anyway.
2 Likes
You’re at least the seventh YEC to take that line with me, and I’m sorry but it’s nonsense.
There is nothing whatsoever about that passage that indicates that it only applies to some contexts but not others. It comes from a chapter of Deuteronomy that contains a variety of different laws with no particular overarching theme other than one’s general conduct in society. Besides, even if it was intended to apply primarily to cheating people in transactions, to exclude it from other contexts is to demand the right to tell lies in those contexts. It is also, in effect, to admit that you are wrong.
In any case, those verses are especially important in science, because the sciences, both operational and historical, are all about what accurate and honest weights and measures look like in different contexts in the first place.
You YECs insist that it’s ungracious and divisive to accuse you of lying. I’m sorry, but all I can say to that is if you don’t want to be accused of lying, don’t tell lies.
7 Likes
That is not possible. If you didn’t grant your senses and your intellect higher epistemological authority than Scripture you couldn’t even read it, let alone understand it.
3 Likes
Take, for instance, the boiling point of water. Measure it - now you have a data point, a fact if you will. For much of the public, that is the beginning and end of science. But you do not yet have a principle, any sort of fundamental understanding. There is nothing there to generalize, nor consilience with other lines of scientific investigation.
Now you find water boils at different temperatures at different locations, and eliminate alternatives until pressure remains. Returning to the lab, hundreds of data points for temperature vs pressure are analyzed and regressed to a smooth curve. Now we have a generalization - a boiling point which has never been directly tested can be predicted if on the domain of the curve. Then a 3D relationship between temperature, pressure, and density is established. But what are the limits of the domain? The critical points are found, the triple point is determined. Viscosity, surface tension, speed of sound, and heat capacity are added. A full equation of state emerges, which can be analyzed by thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. It is found that the equation of state can be violated, that water can be driven into unstable zones which then exhibit nearly explosive transitions. Shock waves propagate faster than the speed of sound. Now we have a much, much deeper understanding of the underlying principles surrounding the boiling point of water.
Then the understanding we have now gained can be generalized further, to places we could never hope to access. Equations of state which describe commonplace gas laws, follow to the extreme conditions of stellar interior plasmas to yield the containment required for fusion (remember those “missing neutrinos”, where YEC did not like the historical implications of fusion?). Without generalizations of equations of state, we could not analyze earthquake waves to determine inaccessible features of the earth’s deep interior, supernovae dynamics, or neutron star structure.
All of that is possible because science is ultimately not just about data points such as the boiling point of water, but rather understanding universal principles of nature. It is not about a static snapshot in time, it is about the unfolding process. We see the principles driving that process, happening in all all stages. The processes we observe are of a continuity, and the principles which drive them are what are constant.
To live on the earth is to live in that continuity. The geological features we see are just a point in time in the unfolding of these processes. That age is inferred is just an implication due that process happens over time. So while, in some trivial way, you can reference historical science as a category, it is derivative to, and dependent upon, an understanding of these basis principles - and these we just call science.
4 Likes
Great! Could you please answer a few questions from your scientific research?
-
What is the scientifically determined age of the Earth in years +/- error range? I’m looking for a numerical value, not just “it’s young” or “it’s not that old”.
-
What is the scientifically determined date of Noah’s Flood years +/- error range? Again I’m looking for a numerical value, not just “it happened”.
-
What is the scientifically determined boundary layer between Noah’s Flood deposited sediment and pre-Flood bedrock? References to published geology papers appreciated.
If you feel this is the wrong thread we can start a new one just for your evidence. Thanks in advance for your answers.
1 Like