[noiseman]

What’s this about “believ(ing) science?” Real science should be (though frequently is not) a dispassionate, objective search for the truth; an effort to simply discern facts. In this case, we have one scientific claim, namely that the Earth is billions of years old, and we also have a competing scientific claim which cites evidence that suggests the Earth may only be thousands of years old. From here the proper course of action would be to dive deeper into the evidence supporting the competing claims to try to ascertain which claim is better supported by that evidence. That’s how science SHOULD work.

I don’t get the concern that presenting new evidence is somehow a transgression of some sort regarding not “believing” the prevailing scientific assumptions.

[old-ager]

When the “science” is about something far (by any reckoning, whether thousands or billions) in the past that cannot be re-run, models, paradigms and beliefs play a much bigger role than in a situation where an experiment can establish a repeatable effect.

[NorthStarOkie]

[[What’s this about “believ(ing) science?” Real science should be (though frequently is not) a dispassionate, objective search for the truth; an effort to simply discern facts.]]

---

The primary moving part in the machine we call the Method of Science is the “Theory”, the part that *explains* laws and observations. Theories of matter have changed as time has passed. Old theories are discarded or used within limitations as new theories become accepted.

Aristotle proposed that matter consisted of various mixtures of “Fire, Earth, Air and Water.” Aristotle’s reputation kept that theory alive for a couple millennia.

Then, the inductive method was proposed; it became the foundation for the method of science. Modern Chemistry began about the time of the American Revolution when Dalton proposed the “hard sphere model” for each different element. That explained a lot.

Then, Rutherford presented data that the atom was mostly empty space; hence, the nucleus. Bohr suggested the electrons moved in orbits which was very useful to explain a number of observations. Next was the orbital theory that explained more observations. Today, quantum theory is so mathematical that it is hard to propose a model that we could look at and understand.

The inductive logic does not have absolute certainty in its theories because theories change as new observations require a theory to be modified. Theories cannot be absolutely proven. Thus, the chemist must *believe* the atomic model of matter as he/she does research. I wonder, when I approach the Pearly Gates if the Lord will lean over and whisper, “That atomic theory of yours, ALL WRONG.”

---

With respect to the Institute of Creation Research, I had a disheartening experience. I attended a seminar headed by the founder of ICR in which he commented that “papers have been published that indicate that the Laws of Thermodynamics are variable.” Of all the Laws of Science, the Laws of Thermodynamics have never been shown to vary.

So I asked if he would give me the citation so that I could read the article for myself. He would not! I walked out. It was not a Science seminar, it was a political/religious seminar. In the three, four, five decades since, no hint of such an idea has surfaced.

ICR — use a grain of salt; a BIG grain of salt.