Absolutely one of the coolest videos I have ever seen . . .

A water drop falling and then bouncing as it becomes absorbed in a larger body of water.

Check out

--With thanks to Chareen on the Sonlight Curriculum Forums

Object v. domain of study . . .

I just started reading Science Held Hostage: What's Wrong with Creation Science AND Evolutionism by Howard J Van Till, Davis A Young, and Clarence Menninga.

In the first few pages they make an interesting observation. Actually, they make the observation in their very first sentence, but it took a couple of pages before I understood its significance:

Although the entire physical universe may be the object of investigation by the natural sciences, not all of its attributes fall within the domain of scientific inquiry.

What does this mean?

The authors attempt to illustrate the distinction by suggesting how we might study a page in a book.

Suppose we were able to describe every aspect of the page from the perspective of a natural scientist. Suppose we analyzed its chemical and physical characteristics, the distribution of atoms, the specific locations of different compounds, the proportions and dimensions and spatial relations of all the physical components. . . .

At the end of such an analysis, would we have missed anything of significance?

Absolutely!

No amount of scientific investigation--at least no amount of scientific inquiry of the type described here--could possibly reveal, 1) that the object of our study [what we--as observers--know is a page of the book] actually is intended to convey meaning, or 2) what that meaning really is.

And, thus, "to say that this page is nothing but a particular assembly of atoms and molecules, or to assert that the physical universe is 'all that is or ever was or ever will be' (as Carl Sagan does in Cosmos, p. 1) is to speak nonsense."

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2c - Evolution and Creation - Excursus 2: Science

#4 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2b - Evolution and Creation - Excursus 1: Naturalism. First post in the series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

In my last post in this series, I mentioned a co-worker who told me he found the Haarsmas' and Glover's presentations--at least as far as I quoted them--quite unconvincing [see my posts from January 21st and 28th and then, finally, on February 1st].

I suggested that the first reason he may have found them unconvincing had to do with my failure adequately to distinguish the methodological naturalism of science (as science, i.e., science per se) from the thoroughgoing ontological naturalism of those we can properly describe as scientists who are committed to advancing an atheistic philosophy.

I urged that we need to distinguish philosophy from science. [I wrote further on the subject, yesterday.]

Today, I'd like to address a second objection my friend raised: that the study of evolution/creation is not and cannot be science--"after all, you can't engage in replicable experiments; you can't follow the scientific method. . . . Creation (or evolution) was a singular event, therefore, by definition, unreproducible." Indeed, "If we're going to let science impinge on our Scriptural understanding of creation, then, logically, we have to permit it to adjust our understanding of the Virgin Birth as well, aren't we? It's a short step from having 'science' redefine our view of creation to having 'science' throw out all the miracles of the Bible."

Let me note: I placed these statements in quotation marks, but this is my [I'm sure faulty] recollection of our conversation. I believe what I have "quoted" him as saying accurately represents the basic sentiments he attempted to communicate, but I hope he will forgive me if I have failed fully and accurately to state his "argument" as he presented it to me.

"Before discussing how the relationship of 'creation' and 'evolution' might be best understood, it is useful first to define the terms." writes Keith Miller in the first sentence of his opening essay in Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. (Essay title: "An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?")

After "creation" and "evolution," there is a third term I believe we need to define. That is science.

What is science?

Miller writes:

Science is a methodology, a limited way of knowing about the natural world. Scientific research proceeds by the search for chains of cause-and-in fact and confines itself to the investigation of 'natural' entities and forces. This self-limitation is sometimes referred to as 'methodological naturalism.' Science restricts itself to proximate causes, and the confirmation or denial of ultimate causes is beyond its capacity. Science does not deny the existence of a creator--it is simply silent on the existence or action of God. The term 'methodological naturalism' is intended to communicate that only natural (as opposed to supernatural) causes can in principle be investigated using scientific methodologies. Methodological naturalism describes what empirical inquiry is--it is certainly not a statement of the nature of cosmic reality. . . . Our most profound questions about the nature of reality (questions of ultimate meaning, purpose, and morality), while they may arise from within science, are theological or philosophical in nature, and their answers lie beyond the reach of science.

--Op. cit., p. 7

"Ahh!" many of us think: "The scientific method." And we think of what we learned in high school about making observations, forming hypotheses that might explain the observations, then creating experiments that might confirm, disconfirm, or force one to modify one's hypotheses, etc.

Oh. And we think in terms of replicability: other people must be able to repeat the experiments and replicate the results--one key aspect of the scientific method I remember from high school and that my friend said he believes is lacking from any and all positive discussions of the idea that all living things descended from a common ancestor.

Despite, at this point, being in the midst of a discussion of Miller's book, I want to turn once more to the Haarsmas' Origins to respond to the objection.

Specifically, I would like to point out the different types of scientific method utilized in different types of science--a concept I think we all understand, but that our high school science teachers failed to emphasize.

The Haarsmas list three different scientific methods in their book (pp. 48-50): experimental, observational, and historical. Once you think about it, I expect you, too, will agree that all three of these qualify as legitimate science, even though they don't all partake of the character of what we were taught concerning the scientific method back in high school.

1. Experimental Science

The Haarsmas write:

Experimental science is the primary type of science done in the fields of physics, chemistry, and molecular biology, as well as parts of ecology and geology. [Done i]n the laboratory, experiments are accessible; the scientist can measure what is happening, monitor the experiment from beginning to end, destroy the products of the experiment, and start over at any time. She can control many variables in the experiment . . . and remove external variables. . . . And she can repeat experiments in the lab if necessary to confirm the first results. . . . Experimental scientists make testable predictions . . . that can be confirmed or contradicted in future experiments.

2. Observational Science

Sometimes controlled experiments cannot be done because the system under study won't fit in the lab, is too far away, or is too dependent on its environment. In those cases, scientists can still do careful observations. . . .

Observational science is commonly done in the fields of meteorology, ecology, medicine, astronomy, and geology. . . . The ecologist can't sit all year and watch the plants grow, and an astronomer can't travel to a star to measure its temperature. But scientists devise alternate methods to get around these difficulties, such as counting plants periodically or analyzing the light of the star to deduce its temperature. Observational science is not controlled; meteorologists cannot produce a cold front whenever they like, nor do ecologists burn down forests just so they can watch how they recover. Observational science must take nature as it comes.

A lack of control makes observational science less repeatable than experimental science. The forest fire can't be repeated whenever the ecologist wants, but fires happen often enough that many are available to study. Usually enough examples are available that the consistency of the underlying laws of nature can be tested on several cases. . . . [J]ust like experimental science, observational science makes testable predictions (like the wildflower growth rate after a fire) that can be confirmed or contradicted in observations of other similar systems.

And then, finally, there is

Historical Science

[This] third method of scientific investigation [involves] modeling the past behavior of systems, including events that occurred before they could be directly observed. Here's an example:

An ecologist travels to a remote forest in order to study its history. She first examines a large tree that has recently fallen down in a storm. She takes a thin slice of the trunk to the laboratory and counts the tree rings. She finds that a 131 years ago a particular ring is extremely thin (indicating drought) and shows evidence of mild fire damage. She hypothesizes that much of the surrounding forest earned down 131 years ago, but this tree survived. Based on the work of her colleague who studies recent forest fires, she makes predictions about the other trees living in the forest: the largest trees will show similar fire damage 131 years ago; many of the smaller trees will prove to be a 120-125 years old, having sprouted 5-10 years after the fire. To test this prediction, she takes core samples of several living trees and looks at their rings. The results confirm her prediction: the older trees all show fire damage 131 years ago, and many of the smaller trees are about 120 years old.

Historical science is common in the fields of ecology, climatology, astronomy, cosmology, evolutionary biology, geology, and paleontology. The goal of historical science is to deduce the natural history of systems. . . . Historical science is not directly accessible because no scientists were around at the time to make observations; however, those events are indirectly accessible because of the evidence they left behind. Like a detective, a historical scientist uses the evidence available today to deduce the history.

Like observational science, historical science is not controlled: scientists cannot go back in time to change the initial event, so they have to work with what actually happened. Historical science investigations can be repeatable when many similar historical situations are available to study (such as the many different trees born after the same forest fire). In some cases, however, the event is not repeated (as in the case of the universe: there is only one universe for cosmologists to study), but scientists can still find evidence that tells them about the natural processes that occurred during that event.

Historical science, at its best, is particularly useful for testing whether physical laws remain unchanged over the years, because historical science gathers data related to events that happened over as wide a period of time as possible.

Most important, historical science makes testable predictions, just as experimental and observational science do. Scientists routinely study one system (such as one tree or one star cluster), make a model for its history, and then predict what they will find in additional observations. These observations could be of other similar systems, or they could be of the same system but made with different instruments. In either case, the observations test the prediction, supporting or contradicting their model for the history of the system.

The Haarsmas suggest you check out the article K-T Boundary Investigation for "another real-life example of historical science."

Can--indeed, should--the results of historical science investigations be questioned? Absolutely!

Should we question the assumptions of those who engage in such investigation? Yes!

Is it legitimate to suggest that such investigations are, necessarily, and by definition, unscientific? No. I think not! Some (maybe even most) such investigations may be unscientific. Indeed, I imagine many are. But I believe it absolutely is illegitimate to suggest they are unscientific by definition.

As I attempted to clarify yesterday, the scientific enterprise is, by definition, all about seeking "proximate, material causes for whatever phenomena scientists determine they want to discover proximate, material causes."

Is their enterprise doomed to failure?

In some areas, I expect, it will, indeed, fail. I lack faith in the idea that the material universe is all that exists. I believe there is evidence that a "supernatural"--i.e., beyond-nature, spiritual--reality exists. And I believe this supernatural realm impinges upon the "natural" or physical. Indeed, as I have often noted in the past (and as the Haarsmas, and Glover, and just about every other Christian evolutionist I have met note), the Bible teaches this and I (and they) believe it: God supervenes over history . . . all history . . . even those portions where, to our eyes, "pure, unadulterated, random chance" seems to rule. Some of the Scriptures that bear on the subject:

• With respect to pure, unadulterated chance (at least as as it is perceivable from a human perspective): Proverbs 16:33--"The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from [Jehovah]."
   
• Colossians 1:17: "[I]n [Jesus] all things hold together."
   
• Hebrews 1:3: "[Jesus] upholds all things by the word of His power."
   
• Proverbs 16:9: "The mind of man plans his way, But [Jehovah] directs his steps."
   
• Proverbs 19:21: "Many plans are in a man's heart, But the counsel of [Jehovah] will stand."
   
• Proverbs 21:31: "The horse is prepared for the day of battle, But victory belongs to [Jehovah]."
   
• Genesis 50:20 (where Joseph speaks to his brothers who had sold him into slavery): "As for you, you meant evil against me, {but} God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."
   
• And so forth.

The point in all of this: It doesn't matter whether we, as humans, can discern a supernatural prevenience at work; Christians are convinced--to the point that we would say we "know" (by faith), God is in control . . . just as, I might add, atheists also are convinced--to the point that they would say they "know" (and, I would note, "by faith"), "There is no God."

And in both cases, I can state with absolute assurance, the claims are non-scientific.

Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2b - Evolution and Creation - Excursus 1: Naturalism

#3 in an ongoing series on Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith B. Miller. Previous post in this series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 2a - Evolution and Creation. First post in the series: Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, 1 - Introduction.

Some further comments on the last two points I quoted from Miller's opening essay, An Evolving Creation: Oxymoron or Fruitful Insight?

In my last post, I noted that Miller had said,

• [The] conflation of a physical naturalism with evolution should be rejected on philosophical, theological, and historical grounds.

And,

• The equation of evolutionary theory with a philosophy that denies the reality of anything beyond matter and energy not only is false but is an impediment to quality scientific and theological thinking.

After reading my earlier posts on the subject of evolution written between January 21st and 28th and then, finally, on February 1st, one of my co-workers indicated he was thoroughly unimpressed by the Haarsmas' and Glover's reasoning.

As I listened to his objections, I came to the conclusion that part of his difficulty with what I quoted came about because he didn't quite "catch" what the Haarsmas and Glover said that parallels the primary message contained in the last two points I have just quoted from Miller. And so I would like to draw special attention to that message.

Scientists who are Christians like to note that science, rightly understood, utilizes what may be called "methodological naturalism"--a method that "assumes" for the sake of theorizing, "only nature," "only the physical realm." Put another way, the scientific enterprise, by definition, is dedicated to seeking physical, natural causes for physical phenomena.

Are scientists, as scientists (i.e., as those dedicated to the scientific enterprise, per se), able to comment on what does or does not exist in the non-physical realm? No. That is outside their purview. It is beyond the methodological limitations they have adopted as scientists or, should I say, within the scientific enterprise.

Yet. Yet. There are scientists who are, personally--and, many of them, publicly--committed to far more than methodological naturalism. They are personally committed to ontological naturalism, a philosophical commitment to the claim that the natural/physical realm is all there is. These are the atheistic evolutionists.

But note. Atheistic evolution is not science. It is, as the Haarsmas call it, evolutionism. It is not a scientific commitment. It is not based on science. Science is in no position to make claims about what is or is not outside of--beyond--the physical realm. But scientists who are committed to the idea that the physical realm is, at root, all there is, will--and do--seek to make "science" (so-called) serve their personal, philosophical commitments or presuppositions. And so, as Miller says, they create a sloppy philosophical stew in order to conflate physical naturalism with evolution.

But we ought to note the "other side" of this "equation" as well.

A theistic "creation science," whether Christian or non-Christian, is also not scientific to the extent that it seeks to attack any kind of scientific theory on the basis of its supposed theism or atheism, or on the basis of an appeal to Scripture or some other authoritative text. . . .

As Glover urges (Beyond the Firmament, p. 25), science (as science, i.e., per se, or as philosophers would put it, qua science) is "just a methodology or a procedure, like the process of baking a cake. A cake made by Charles Darwin or Carl Sagan will taste just like a cake made by John Calvin, the Pope, Gandhi, or Mohammed, provided they all use the same recipe. . . . So as long as we don't expect science to answer religious questions, the philosophical motivations behind it shouldn't affect the outcome if the rules are followed."

Or, to use another analogy,

Let's say you have a neurological disorder and require brain surgery. The procedure that can save your life is very risky. Your chances of survival are 50/50. Your HMO lets you choose between two doctors: a relatively young doctor who has never performed the procedure before and a world-renowned expert with hundreds of successful operations to his credit. Obviously, you go with the more experienced doctor, right?

Now let's say that the more experienced doctors a militant Darwinist who strongly believes that the human brain is merely the product of chance plus natural selection over time. When he's not performing surgery, [he seeks to turn all the results of] his pioneering work in neurobiology [into a means of proving] that all of our thoughts and emotions are merely the result of chemistry and biology.

Contrast this with the sincere Christian faith of the young doctor. He is a member in good standing of his local church. He believes that God created the world in six 24-hour days. He believes that man has a soul and that the human brain was intelligently designed by a sovereign Creator.

Now who do you go with? Does knowing the philosophical commitment of each doctor change anything? Would you rather have the seasoned expert or the young novice cutting into your skull? Are you more concerned about the procedure or about the religious beliefs of the one performing it? I think most Christians would still go with the more experienced doctor. . . .

The reason is simple, we direct questions of material procedure (brain surgery) to the most qualified scientists [or, in this case, medical doctors! --JAH] regardless of their religious or philosophical commitment.

--Ibid., pp. 25-26

Back to my main point: Let us not confuse philosophical commitments with science.

How "real" science is being done today

Want to know the grounds for the multi-trillion-dollar proposals before the U.S. congress and other world government bodies? (I refer, of course, to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 and the International Energy Agency's call for a $45 trillion investment in "clean technology.")

The scientific grounds for these proposals are . . . absolutely mind-blowing, to put it mildly.

If you've never been to ClimateAudit.org before, I recommend you check it out. The site's owner and primary author, Steve McIntyre is deeply concerned about the matter of scientific credibility. For good reason.

Mr. McIntyre is trained and experienced in uncovering fraud in mining company investment offerings. (A company that owns a gold mine, for example, may claim it has 25 million tons of proven, high-grade, gold-bearing ore in a certain mine. Mr. McIntyre's job is to look at the data and determine whether the company's claim is valid or not.)

Using the same bullheaded search for truth in the "global climate change" debate, Mr. McIntyre has been discovering that the leading spokespeople for the kind of hysteria that seems to rule the day . . . --these people seem, regularly, to ignore the rules of thoroughgoing scientific research: they cherry-pick their data, "forget" to document their work, refuse to permit fully independent inquiry into their data and methodology, and, overall, make it as difficult as possible for anyone but themselves--the alarmist masters--to evaluate their work.

For one minor example of this phenomenon, take McIntyre's May 11, 2006, post for example, in which he questions the dendroclimatological studies [tree-ring based studies of climate change over time] of a supposed "leader" in the field, one J. Esper.

McIntyre reveals something Esper conveniently never mentioned in a major peer-reviewed paper he had published in Science magazine: Esper had collected a lot more data than he reported on.

So McIntyre asked Esper

two . . . methodological questions - one that I’ve been asking for a while: how he operationally allocates tree populations into “linear” and “nonlinear” trees . . . [and how] he decide[d] which trees to use and which trees not to use.

Here, verbatim, is the second (and, for my purposes in this post, most pertinent) question that McIntyre put to Esper via Science:

In 4 cases (Athabaska, Jaemtland, Quebec, Zhaschiviersk), Esper’s site chronology says that not all of the data in the data set is used. This is not mentioned in the original article. What is the basis for de-selection of individual cores?

This is Esper’s "non-responsive answer" as quoted by McIntyre:

As described, in some of the sites we did not use all data. We did not remove single measurements, but clusters of series that had either significantly differing growth rates or differing age-related shapes, indicating that these trees represent a different population, and that combining these data in a single RCS run will result in a biased chronology. By the way, we excluded other sites because growth was too rapid, for example.

"First, consider Esper’s statement," McIntyre pleads:

“As described, in some of the sites we did not use all data.” I challenge anyone to locate any “description” or even hint in the four corners of Esper et al 2002 that they did not use all the data, let alone any reason for why they did not use all the data. There is no “description” or even hint in Esper et al 2002 [the original article] that all the data was not used. The admission came only in response to my parsing through data that took nearly two years to get.

Esper now says that cores were de-selected to avoid a “biased chronology” and cited Esper et al 2003 as a suppposed authority for the procedure. However an examination of Esper et al 2003 provides no such authority. In fact, the closest thing in Esper et al 2003 to such a statement is the following, which I’ve quoted before:

Before venturing into the subject of sample depth and chronology quality, we state from the beginning, “more is always better”. However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.

Here Esper is talking about removing data to “enhance a desired signal”. Excuse me - that doesn’t sound like a way of avoiding a “biased chronology”; it sounds like a recipe for making biased chronologies - biased towards a “desired signal.”

What do you think?

*******

For some fundamental understanding of what McIntyre is up against, see Kyoto protocol based on flawed statistics, The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications and/or Backgrounder for McIntyre and McKitrick “Hockey Stick Project”.

One for the Scientific Community

I thought you might appreciate seeing this.

I received it from my brother who is founding president of the International Christian Technologists Association.

Right now, the 2007 Best Weblog Contest is going on. Ten blogs in each of a number of categories. One category is science.

An underdog blog is the mouthpiece for a guy who, on his own dime, is working hard to see better scientific work done on the challenge of climate change. Leslie and I [that's my brother and his wife--JAH] have enjoyed helping a bit in our spare time.

Last year's contest (in the science arena) was won by 4000 votes -- and voters are allowed to vote every 24 hours for a week. (The last day of voting is Nov 7... it's already well under way.)

The great blog: http://www.climateaudit.org/

The vote: http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php

Climate Audit is by Steve McIntyre -- the guy who demonstrated errors in the "hockey stick" graph for Global Warming -- a graph created using such bad math that almost *any* data set -- even plain noise! -- will generate hockey sticks. (Steve also proved that the NASA scientist (Mann) at fault KNEW his method was bad: Mann denied he had done a particular statistical test for spurious data... yet Steve discovered Mann had an analysis hidden away in a "CENSORED" folder...with exactly the analysis Mann denied having done!)

Steve is also the guy who recently proved errors in NASA's "revisionist" temperature history, forcing them to update their data. (Yes -- today is not warmer because it was measured warmer. Today is "warmer" because they keep revising OLD temperatures DOWNWARD. I'm not kidding.)

And,

Steve is the guy who keeps highlighting unbelievable practices among climate scientists. Practices that, despite the nasty things said about him, are slowly but surely causing the rest of the scientific community to wake up. For example, this is an actual quote, in print, from a leading climate scientist:

...this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.

Oh, yes: these guys literally believe that data that doesn't fit their hypothesis can be TOSSED OUT! (Earliest post on the theme: http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200509 -- search for "A quote from Esper." It's been used more often since then, and picked up elsewhere.)

THAT is actually one key reason Leslie and I helped collect new data up near Pike's Peak.

The claim has been consistently made that Trees tell a temperature story of global warming. And that it's too hard, too expensive for the Boulderites to go back up and update the data (last collected in 1984.) Yet we'd been hearing rumors that maybe all was not well. So, based on Steve's Starbucks hypothesis (can a team start at Starbucks in the morning, collect tree ring samples and be back in time for dinner?), we went on our adventure. And proved his hypothesis right.

Photo Gallery, by the way: http://picasaweb.google.com/Almagre.Bristlecones.2007

Some of the story (google Almagre climate audit and you'll get more than you want to know)... http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2189

Anyway. Once more: please go to http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php and vote for Climate Audit for "Best Science Blog."