The YEC Distinction Between Operational and Historical Science Is Not Recognized And Is Wrong 100,002 Times Over

Conversation
41

Attaining understanding of the past can have predictive value. The massive exploration capital expenditure of the fossil fuel industry is entirely guided by conventional geology, and payback is definitely expected. The discovery in 1980 that there was an iridium enriched layer at the K-Pg boundary led to the prediction that evidence of a source impact event might be found; soon afterwards evidence began to present that the meteorite responsible was linked to the Chicxulub Crater, and after much investigation by 2010 the identification was broadly consensus.

A biologos article lists four predictions coming out of mainstream historical science well ahead of their discovery, including the existence and frequency of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the Chicxulub crater, the transitional Tiktaalik fossil, and the molecular clock divergence of marsupials.

That humans have one less chromosome than other apes was once, and still is, presented by apologists as another evidence of special creation. Biologists maintained that common descent required that a fusion had to have occurred, but early on had no direct evidence. In 1982 Junis and Prakash showed that banding of human chromosome 2 showed a pattern matching a combined chimpanzee 2A and 2B, and since then DNA sequencing data has yielded detailed confirmation.

Historical science has even anticipated experimental nuclear physics, with Fred Hoyle predicting in 1953 that a pathway would be found to allow for the stellar nucleosynthesis of carbon, based on scientific cosmology which states that all elements heavier than lithium must have been forged in stars. This nuclear resonance allowing for our existence was experimentally detected at Caltech in 1957.

Fulfilled prediction is often considered the hallmark of a successful theory or model, although what really matters in the end is the evidence itself no matter if it was anticipated or serendipitously happened upon. Although in principle science is skeptical and all theories are tentative, in practice scientists build on the existing body of knowledge, standing on the shoulders of giant and not so giant prior contributions. Nothing would get done if researchers had to start each day first reproving everything in scientific history. Most tests of hypothesis have a tinge of expectation, and this is true in regards to investigation of the past as well as experimentation.

6 Likes
42

Excellent examples, from both the Biologos article and the ones you provided. I have often wondered how well the concept of consilience and the fulfilled predictions of science are taught in K through 12 public education nowadays. We all know that most people will forget most of what they learned in their long ago science classes but I would think it possible to make sure they retain these fundamental gems so that people will appreciate the incredible value of science.

2 Likes
43

Epistemological navel gazing has contributed little to scientific progress, and most scientists carry on without thought for the captive sensibilities of literalists. Of those that do engage with creationists, there is not any failure to understand the temporal distinction that YEC are trying to press, nor is anyone deaf to the argument in order to protect some worldview. Rather, the creationist take is without merit and driven by ulterior rhetorical goals. No one is buying the bill of goods they’re selling. For all their chatter about the primacy of operational science, they repeatedly conjure explanations which have zero observed support. For all their talk of science being necessarily founded on an orderly creation, they dismiss the consilience of evidence. For all their purported acceptance of the scientific method, they wave away the vital role of peer reviewed analysis and consensus building as naive, or worse as conspiracy. For all their cartoons stating they accept the same evidence but interpret it with a creationist lens, they constantly ignore, fabricate, or reject relevant basic data.

Which raises the question - given their disinterest in any application of what they consider to be operational science, why then their incessant harping on it? The probable answer lies in their ultimate goal and target audience.

Creationists have shown little interest in engaging the scientific community. Their outreach is largely to youth pastors and parents who feel inadequate to address science and are seeking reassurance that their literalism is somehow compatible. To meet this demand, YEC organizations parade an enthusiastic embrace of what they designate as real science to demonstrate a commitment to objective reality, while creating a dichotomy which is siloed off from what they consider to be materialistic philosophical naturalism, that encompasses pretty much all of mainstream astronomy, geology, and science touching on any processes leading to today.

Having thus relegated study involving the past to a distinct category where dogma is no longer out of domain but explicitly held superior to scientific evidence, YEC grants itself free rein to contrive any story to explain away data inconvenient to their narrative and present that as equivalent interpretation to be decided by worldview. The narrative is no longer accountable to science and can be truly bizarre, but what often passes unnoticed is the wild divergence from the Biblical story of rain coming down and water going up. The science of radiometric dating is explained away by concocted evidence of accelerated decay, which not only violates physics but raises a theological question that YEC is quiet on - what does accelerating radioactivity have to do with God flooding the earth anyways? That’s weird, as is the freely decaying current they propose to conjure away the record of Earth’s magnetic reversals? The inertial electrical current idea is impossible to begin with, reversing it double impossible, and again how does that fit into the story? Craters. There are craters on every body that have not been erased by tectonic processes or erosion - on planets, moons, and asteroids. What was Mercury’s terrible transgression to be sentenced to stoning? Did it learn its lesson? Animals descending the ark, in a matter of a few generations radiating into hundreds of distinct species, only for most of them just when adapted, to promptly up and go extinct. Does that really sound like the Biblical mandate to reproduce after their kind? Rapid tectonic movement, dinosaurs on the ark, on and on, a colossal castle in the air which has been constructed supposedly to defend a literal Bible but is nowhere to be found in its pages. Creationism has far eclipsed Genesis and is unconstrained by any sense of purpose in the narrative.

All this is a result of the refusal to come to terms with the reality of the scientific evidence, and the more pervasive and blunt the testimony of nature, the more outlandish is forced to be the alibi. But in for a penny, in for a pound, and so it goes and grows.

All definitions of science come with caveats, but the following is inclusive of historical science and will serve to cap off (at last) my comments.

Science Council (UK)

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

3 Likes
44

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.