How can we recover the principle of “Multiple Working Hypotheses”?

[dtyler]

Reflecting on the geological exchanges on TWeb, I have been struck by five observations.

1. Each and every geological perspective with a link to biblical history is treated as absurd, irrational and an affront.
2. There is an ongoing confusion of uniformity and uniformitarianism.
3. Conventional geological views are given privileged status over any alternative interpretations.
4. Biblicaly-based geology is associated with the stunts of showmen and the unguarded statements of popularisers where it is easy to be critical, whereas these same critics have almost no visible ability to be critical of conventional geology.
5. Straw men are regularly set up and demolished, often with ample sprinklings of polemical declarations of victory.

The effect of these forcibly held positions is to severely limit the extent to which there can be any meaningful discussion. Paraphrasing the words of Jesus, if we cannot achieve some positive discussion about specific issues (which are more closely defined), how can we ever hope to get anything useful from discussing the big picture? This new thread is designed to point out that the observations listed above are sufficient to recognize, at best, an unhealthy attitude to geological science and, at worst, the marks of antiscience.

To help me in this, I wish to draw attention to an excellent essay by William Dickinson, published a few months ago. The abstract is below.

THE PLACE AND POWER OF MYTH IN GEOSCIENCE: AN ASSOCIATE EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE
WILLIAM R. DICKINSON
American Journal of Science, Vol. 303, November, 2003, P. 856–864.

ABSTRACT. Distinguishing between myth and science is subtle, for both seek to understand the things around us. The characteristic style of mythic thinking is to place special emphasis on a selective conjecture, based typically on the initial observation or recognition of a phenomenon, which is thereafter given privileged status over alternate interpretations. Concepts in geoscience are quite commonly mythic in that sense. The outdated notion of geosynclines as deterministic precursors of orogeny is an apt example, as are central current ideas about suspect terranes, mantle plumes, and global sequence stratigraphy. Geomyths stimulate investigation, but also may retard further progress by dismissing contrary views. Improved understanding of geologic history could be attained more efficaciously by appreciating the mythic quality of many nascent ideas in geoscience, and resisting the temptation to accord geomyths favored status over competing hypotheses.

It is very interesting to see the examples he chooses for his geomyths. Everyone can receive the geosyncline as an example – for this concept is now obsolete, now that we have Plate Tectonics. But it is very interesting that his other three examples are still “live”: suspect terranes, mantle plumes and global sequence stratigraphy. Some sensitive spots are touched here, and some will not thank Dickinson for this list. (Incidentally, these can all be described using the word “paradigm” – and can be included in the list of examples that was commenced on another thread.)

The effects of geomyths are, according to Dickinson, as follows.
1. The concept expands selectively from a narrow focus to embrace a far-reaching analysis.
2. It places an extra onus of argumentation upon potential detractors.
3. It extrapolates from the particular to the general case by making an inductive leap.
4. It rejects the spirit of the familiar method of multiple working hypotheses. It posits dominance of a single perception to the exclusion of others.
5. When predictions of a geomyth fail, the characteristic response is to change the underlying assumptions, or evaluations of constraints, in ways that keep the core of the geomyth essentially intact.

I will leave the specific cases for Dickinson to argue (you can read it in http://www.mantleplumes.org/, click on “Geomyths” lower right). Here is his Summary Overview:

An important concern is whether geomyths retard our thinking, or encourage research that leads to improved concepts. My prejudice is that investigations pursued under the aegis of various geomyths often embody too narrow a focus, failing to embrace a wide enough view of the phenomena in question. The seductive attraction of any myth is to eliminate conceptual uncertainty by providing comprehensive solutions for challenging puzzles, yet we learn new things only by acknowledging uncertainty and addressing paradox forthrightly.

Without rejecting the mental stimulus that geomyths afford, we could benefit from resisting any tendency to accord special status to the observations and arguments that underpin them. Why, in order to gain a sympathetic hearing, should the opponent of a geomyth have to assemble evidence against it more conclusive than the original evidence in favor of it?

The advantages of innovative induction can be preserved without lapsing into a mythic mode by reasoning with the guidance of strong inference (Platt, 1964), whereby inductive inferences are succeeded at once by deductive predictions (based on the inductive inferences) designed deliberately to test each inductive leap for potential disproof. When an inference is found wanting in any respect, it is then immediately adjusted or rejected, and the process repeated with an improved inference. If sequential tests are pursued with vigor, this approach guarantees that inductive inferences remain falsifiable, and do not grow inadvertently into untested geomyths having more durability than ultimate utility.

What is the relevance of this paper to the issues we have been discussing? Very simply, the identification marks of geomythical thinking are not hard to find. Let’s look at them in turn.

1. The concept expands selectively from a narrow focus to embrace a far-reaching analysis.
In our various exchanges, who are the people who continually want to get to the big picture without first reaching any consensus on the narrow focus? Frequently, arguments are made that go from specifics to make far-reaching statements about the general case.

2. It places an extra onus of argumentation upon potential detractors.
On the issues we have discussed, those seeking to develop a catastrophist approach are required to provide a complete story – whereas the view being defended is riddled with holes (of course this is not admitted) and there is thought no need to defend it rigorously because “the geological community holds this as true”.

3. It extrapolates from the particular to the general case by making an inductive leap.
The particular may be true – but that should not be used to extrapolate without rigorous testing. Many polemical flourishes hide these inductive leaps.

4. It rejects the spirit of the familiar method of multiple working hypotheses. It posits dominance of a single perception to the exclusion of others.
This is my main complaint. Instead of welcoming different ideas, radical ideas, challenging ideas, there is a constant tendency to reject, decry, or otherwise diminish other approaches to resolving geological questions. This is, in my opinion, the clearest indicator of an anti-science mentality.

5. When predictions of a geomyth fail, the characteristic response is to change the underlying assumptions, or evaluations of constraints, in ways that keep the core of the geomyth essentially intact
This is a very widespread phenomenon – the theory becomes infinitely flexible so that whatever data is produced, the underlying concept stays intact. Dickinson explains how it relates to his chosen examples – in different ways, this has been explored in our discussions. It applies to Darwinists also, because Darwinism shows all the signs of adaptation in order to retain the biomyth. The essence of science is that theories and concepts are vulnerable, and part of our scientific work is to expose our thoughts to critical examination.

Lest it be thought this post is too one-sided, I will freely acknowledge that these same characteristics are found within the creationist fold. There is unwarranted extrapolation from specific to general, There are inductive leaps, there is a failure to have multiple working hypotheses, there is a clinging on to concepts when they have been falsified. It is not difficult to find things to criticize within creationism. However, I am also arguing that valid criticisms do not lead to the general conclusion that all is worthless. Dickinson does not do this with his paper – he writes to promote healthy science. That’s what I am seeking and that is what any creationist in science is seeking.

I have said my say on this. I hope it promotes some common ground.

[Monkey Boy]

Let us of course not forget the greatest geomyth of all time -- the global flood. For how many centuries was the science of geology straitjacketed by this mother of all myths? It took a mountain of contrary data -- and forceful personalities -- to finally break the science of geology free from the bondage of the global flood geomyth.

(How ironic to be lectured to about myths by the poster who can't provide a shred of empirical data to support his core hypotheses.)

[HiddenOne]

Reflecting on the geological exchanges on TWeb, I have been struck by five observations.

1. Each and every geological perspective with a link to biblical history is treated as absurd, irrational and an affront.

I think that is incorrect. I believe Steve Austin has an article in International Geology reviews about the earthquake of Amos' time. There has been considerable discussion about the flood of Noah in the region of the Black Sea. I think you are selective in your memory!

2. There is an ongoing confusion of uniformity and uniformitarianism.

Not to nitpick, but it seems that you are the one most confused and most likely to misuse the terms.


3. Conventional geological views are given privileged status over any alternative interpretations.

Baloney. Geology, like any other science is about challenging the standing interpretations. If by 'alternative' you mean web based conjecture or non-reviewed science then there is good reason for that.


4. Biblicaly-based geology is associated with the stunts of showmen and the unguarded statements of popularisers where it is easy to be critical, whereas these same critics have almost no visible ability to be critical of conventional geology.

See above.

5. Straw men are regularly set up and demolished, often with ample sprinklings of polemical declarations of victory.

See above. Most of the strawmen I've seen on this board are set up by young earth creationists. Not all, but a great many dealing with geology.


To help me in this, I wish to draw attention to an excellent essay by William Dickinson, published a few months ago. The abstract is below.

mantle plumes,

The problem, of course is that post-dating that article, we received some of the best and most comprehensive tomography that showed the existence of mantle plumes (see Finite-frequency tomography reveals a variety of plumes in the mantle
AU: Montelli, Raffaella; Nolet, Guust; Dahlen, F A; Masters, Guy; Engdahl, E Robert; Hung, Shu-Huei
SO: Science, vol.303, no.5656, pp.338-343, 16 Jan 2004
). So they have gone beyond just speculation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol303/issue5656/images/large/zse0010421740002.jpeg


Furthermore, some speculation is needed in order to test ideas. In the 1700 and 1800's scientists speculated about a global flood. This speculation led to research and the research showed the global flood to be a geomyth. It probably was not listed by Dickinson because it's such an old geomyth that most already recognize the fact.


Geologists, like most scientists use multiple working hypotheses. It's a shame that they appear invisible to you.

[DunnySaze]

1. Each and every geological perspective with a link to biblical history is treated as absurd, irrational and an affront.

My reply below is aimed primarily at the perspective of YE creationism, because that is your viewpoint I believe.

The Bible actually says very little about geology (mainly because the writers cared very little about it I suspect). It does mention a couple events that could have had profound geological implications (the Global Flood and the initial 6 ‘day’ Creation), but the lack of geologic detail there in the Biblical descriptions requires a significant amount of imagination that must be brought to bear to formulate a detailed physical model. Unfortunately, such models suffer scientifically from the fact that they require extensive intervention from God in places, or are ad hoc speculations having little or no evidentiary support. In fact, what we do know about geology would tend to emphatically rule out most such models rather than support them.

But as to the point #1 above as a general rule, this is simply false. The Bible does make a few geological statements that are quite accurate.

Job 14:18-19, But as a mountain falls and crumbles away, and as rock is moved from its place; as water wears away stones, and as torrents wash away the soil of the earth; so you destroy the hope of man.

This sounds like a pretty good concise description of water erosion and sediment transport to me. That Job suggests that mountains can actually fall by this process is very prescient indeed. Surely he did not observe this directly, but must have used a uniformitarian assumption that such a process can level a mountain over time.

Job 28:1-5, Surely there is a mine for silver, and a place where gold is refined. Iron is taken from the earth, and copper is smelted for ore. Man puts an end to darkness, and searches every recess for ore in the darkness and the shadow of death. He breaks open a shaft away from people; in places forgotten by feet they hang far away from men; they swing to and fro. As for the earth, from it comes bread, but underneath it is turned up as by fire; its stones are the sources of sapphires, and it contains gold dust.

Again Job is bang on. Silver is mined and gold is refined. Iron is taken from the Earth and copper is smelted from the ore. Stones do contain sapphires and gold can be found as pure metallic dust.

… Dickinson does not do this with his paper – he writes to promote healthy science. That’s what I am seeking and that is what any creationist in science is seeking.

This last sentence of yours is preposterous.

But then again, it may depend on what one means by “healthy” science. After all, what the lynx considers healthy is by no means a viewpoint shared by the hare. If you mean that "healthy science" must support your pre-conceived Biblical notions, or at the very least not conflict with them, then that’s a different thing then what I mean by that phrase. I mean that healthy science is a science that advances our understanding of nature, and lays the groundwork for further understanding still. I know that the process is not perfect. I know that sometimes the reigning paradigms (of any science) can act as a brake instead of an accelerator in understanding some new phenomena or fact that may conflict with part of the existing models. Sometimes it takes a lot of effort and a lot of evidence to change things. But the system works. Undeniably, it works just as it is, warts and all.

What about creationism? Are they really only interested in merely advancing our understanding of nature? We can get a clue by looking at the mission statements of a couple creationist organizations, AiG and ICR.

From Answers in Genesis ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about.asp)

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith, and to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its stable mate, a ‘millions of years old’ earth (and even older universe).

From the Institute of Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm)

Tenets of Scientific Creationism
• The physical universe of space, time, matter, and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.
• The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator.
• Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variation) within the kinds, or "downward' changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
• The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life.
• The record of earth history, as preserved in the earth's crust, especially in the rocks and fossil deposits, is primarily a record of catastrophic intensities of natural processes, operating largely within uniform natural laws, rather than one of gradualism and relatively uniform process rates. There are many scientific evidences for a relatively recent creation of the earth and the universe, in addition to strong scientific evidence that most of the earth's fossiliferous sedimentary rocks were formed in an even more recent global hydraulic cataclysm.
• Processes today operate primarily within fixed natural laws and relatively uniform process rates but, since these were themselves originally created and are daily maintained by their Creator, there is always the possibility of miraculous intervention in these laws or processes by their Creator. Evidences for such intervention should be scrutinized critically, however, because there must be clear and adequate reason for any such action on the part of the Creator.
• The universe and life have somehow been impaired since the completion of creation, so that imperfections in structure, disease, aging, extinctions, and other such phenomena are the result of "negative" changes in properties and processes occurring in an originally-perfect created order.
• Since the universe and its primary components were created perfect for their purposes in the beginning by a competent and volitional Creator, and since the Creator does remain active in this now-decaying creation, there do exist ultimate purposes and meanings in the universe. Teleological considerations, therefore, are appropriate in scientific studies whenever they are consistent with the actual data of observation, and it is reasonable to assume that the creation presently awaits the consummation of the Creator's purpose.
• Although people are finite and scientific data concerning origins are always circumstantial and incomplete, the human mind (if open to the possibility of creation) is able to explore the manifestations of that Creator rationally and scientifically, and to reach an intelligent decision regarding one's place in the Creator's plan.

Upon reading these statements I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that they are really interested in “healthy science”, at least as I understand that to mean as a way to learn about the world.

[HiddenOne]

Upon reading these statements I find it difficult if not impossible to believe that they are really interested in “healthy science”, at least as I understand that to mean as a way to learn about the world.

Indeed! These statements by default preclude multiple working hypotheses and an unbiased approach.

[NeilUnreal]

YEC will never be able to present a working scientific hypothesis until its proponents accept that YEC as a whole is falsifiable.

-Neil

[aniso]

...
4. It rejects the spirit of the familiar method of multiple working hypotheses. It posits dominance of a single perception to the exclusion of others.
This is my main complaint. Instead of welcoming different ideas, radical ideas, challenging ideas, there is a constant tendency to reject, decry, or otherwise diminish other approaches to resolving geological questions. This is, in my opinion, the clearest indicator of an anti-science mentality.

So, David, does this now mean that you will no longer reject, decry or diminish other approaches such as evolution, uniformitarianism, and naturalism as viable hypotheses?

[Monkey Boy]

Proof that "multiple working hypotheses" are an everyday part of modern science: Here are some web pages that discuss the development of theories regarding the origin of the moon. Most interesting is the discussion of the multiple hypotheses that were discarded along the way due to conflicts with the empirical data.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tothemoon/origins2.html

David's continued slander against modern science grows more odious the more he repeats it.

[kofh2u]

Let us of course not forget the greatest geomyth of all time -- the global flood. For how many centuries was the science of geology straitjacketed by this mother of all myths? It took a mountain of contrary data -- and forceful personalities -- to finally break the science of geology free from the bondage of the global flood geomyth.

(How ironic to be lectured to about myths by the poster who can't provide a shred of empirical data to support his core hypotheses.)


Science rebuttal of many dogmatic interpretations are misguided. They focus on negating ideas such as Evolution and the Flood, for instance, arguing eith an aydience that serves also as the jury.

In the frustration of providing rational evidence and sensible logical explanations, science people foolish plead a case under the similar conditions of Galilleo trying to convince the Pope of Heliocentricism while the Inquistion notes the names of all authorities guoted.

No, having said that many are merely exercising in the futility of changing minds already defensively set not to agree, under any circumstances, I oppose many comments made from scientists which disparages the Scriptures as myth.

1) The seven "days" of creation suggested 3500 years ago is remarkably on target.
The Hebrew word used here,
day," means an unspecified period of time, not 24 hoirs, though it could nean that.
That unslecified period of time is analogous to the present concept of Geological Time, theorizing that over time, from a Big Bang until this very prrsent moment, we have experienced seven long Eras.

2) In regard to the flood, again, I submit that you argue against very ancient understandings by common and uneducated people who at best could be expected to take the story of Noah as literal and possible. Certainly the simple truth is that this supposed flood is metaphor. It reports the sudden population explosion of Modern Homo Sapiens. A day, as St Peter said, is like a thousand years, 40,000 years. This closely parallels our current understanding. Neanderthal was without orallanguage, having preceded our own species, present 100,000 years ago, surely his dominance had given identifying sign and grunt to every animal common to both themselves and our new arrival on the scene.
The ark was a skull carrying a smaller yet better brain in us, Homo. In this flood al. other species of Hominoid died, as did the convention for identifying animals. Modern Homo Sapiens divided into three races, analogous to the three sons of Noah. The names carried forward by these new evolved men are those which were for the first time give names which were spoken.

These two realities, of both science and scripture, among many others, are where you ought focus attention, and your audience should be not the present adversaries but people who in the secular community stopped thinking about this amazing insight of sctipture now confirmed by science.

[SedRocks]

Interesting thread, and thanks for bringing Dickinson's article to my attention. I largely agree with Dickinson's analysis of mythic thinking. For example, I don't deal with hot spots much and I don't follow the arguments on them much, so I carry around an overly simplistic mental image that I rely on too much. I therefore of course agree with David that shaking up our mental models and questioning our assumptions is always a good thing. Let me start by acknowledging my appreciation for David's last paragraph, and agreeing with the spirit of his last three sentences.

Nonetheless, with respect to David's five observations:


1. Each and every geological perspective with a link to biblical history is treated as absurd, irrational and an affront.
2. There is an ongoing confusion of uniformity and uniformitarianism.
3. Conventional geological views are given privileged status over any alternative interpretations.
4. Biblicaly-based geology is associated with the stunts of showmen and the unguarded statements of popularisers where it is easy to be critical, whereas these same critics have almost no visible ability to be critical of conventional geology.
5. Straw men are regularly set up and demolished, often with ample sprinklings of polemical declarations of victory.

1. No, only the more obviously wrong ones. I agree with HiddenOne that the recent claim that the Black Sea may have flooded catastrophically and could have thereby given rise to widespread legends about a global flood was received with interest by geologists. Israeli geologists often come out with findings that have biblical significance, and those are usually viewed with interest.

2. As I see it, you have an aberrant view of what goes on in geology today in regard to those topics.

3. Agreed, but unusual claims require exceptional documentation.

5. I will agree that many scientific papers have a tendency to overstate pre-exisitng problems, oversimplify their opponents, and exaggerate the importance and certainty of their results, and if they don't more popular media accounts certainly will. However, that isn't what you meant. The way I see it, the strawmen, empty rhetoric, and hollow claims of victory that you mention in your accusation is almost the standard modus operandi for creationists and their ilk.

I agree wiuth HiddenOne that flood geology acted as a severely constricting straightjacket for geology for many years.

When a paradigm fails it does take a little while to sort out the mess, to convince all the old guard, to get over feeling a need to save portions of the old terminology to rationalize or synthesize the old & new paradigms, to save the core of the old concept. This causes problems, but it does mean that once the failed aspects of the old paradigm are killed, they are definitively dead and are gone forever. (Proof is tentative, but disproof is forever.)
Geosynclinal theory had some very good points to it, and it was not entirely wrong. On the other hand, plate tectonics and tectonostratigraphy is clearly vastly superior. As a result no one runs around trying to apply geosynclinal concepts and intepretations to the rocks any more. Anyone who did so (except in certain very specific contexts, such as the history of geology) would be justly viewed as flogging a dead horse, wasting time and effort on an irrelevancy.

Flood geology failed catastrophically as a paradigm long ago. It recieved an examination that was more than fair, given the tenacity with which its proponents clung to religious precepts, but it flunked definitively. Its failures are still valid, and no new relevant evidence has come forward to justify a reconsideration. Flood geology and attempting to rationalize the bible with geology were responsible for massive misdirection of geological investigations, so today they are viewed a priori with distaste, because, once a better paradigm is in hand, the old one can only retard further progress. This is exactly how a chemist would view a proposal to revive alchemical research. (Note that today we can in fact transform one element into another, but this quite propoerly does not justify going back to alchemical methods, goals, or terminology.) Some limitations are appropriate, proper, and well merited.

That being said, multiple working hypotheses are alive and well in geology departments, and assumptions are constantly under question. I agree that asssumptions do too often tend to be queried within the reigning paradigm, but regressing to the failed paradigm of flood geology and a short time frame is not the answer.

In response to David's specific subsequent points, I see the creationists as the ones straightjacketed by a narrow focus, being unwilling to consider conflicting details, being cognitively dissonant bewtween different parts of their own arguments. The ICR tenets that DunnySaze posted are the very antithesis of everything that you say you want to see. I agree that rejection of multiple working hypotheses can be a clear indicator of an anti-science mentaility, but I see that in anti-evolutionists, not the reverse. The spirit I encounter amongst my scientific colleagues is epitonized by a Sidney Harris cartoon, where two academic types are coming out of a lecture at a conference, and one is excitedly saying to the other, "What a fantastic lecture, everything we think we know is wrong". I see scientists eager to do science, and creationists eager to stifle it and substitute religious propaganda in its place.

I agree that endless ad hoc rescuing of a bad idea is itself a bad idea. On the other hand, the theory of evolution (a) is a very powerful and broad theory, and (b) has changed considerably since Darwin proposed it. Many scientific ideas about evolution have changed from Darwin's original proposal. We now understand genes, geological time, and cladistic analysis, for example. Darwin suggested natural selection and sexual selection as mechanisms for evolution, but others have added genetic drift, founder efffect, chromosomal mutation, and others. We use the name 'neo-Darwinism' for the newer greater set of theories and hypotheses, and we occasionally take pains to note that we are not "Darwinists". However, we stick with Darwinian terms for the overall theory rather than coining whole new labels because Darwin did such an impressive job of marshalling evidence (covering fossils, field work, embryology, anatomical work, etc.), setting out new ways of arguing (placing different by synchronous examples into stages in developmental successions), and providing a broad, comprehensive, and powerful explanation for so much of biology. The concerns that David expresses that evolution could be ad hocced when it ought to be scrapped are legitimate, but so far all the critiques that I've heard creationists raise are fairly straightforward misunderstandings or misrepresentations at various levels of sophistication. As far as I can see, evolution and geology are receiving appropriate levels and types of questioning from within science, whereas creationsim is providing not critical thinking but obfuscation and misrepresentation.

[DunnySaze]

Neanderthal was without orallanguage, having preceded our own species, present 100,000 years ago, surely his dominance had given identifying sign and grunt to every animal common to both themselves and our new arrival on the scene.

How do you know the Neanderthals could not speak? I think their relatively advanced Mousterian tool kit alone supports the contention that they must have had some kind of complex cognitive skills, including language.

The ark was a skull carrying a smaller yet better brain in us, Homo.

Better? In what way?

Modern Homo Sapiens divided into three races, analogous to the three sons of Noah. The names carried forward by these new evolved men are those which were for the first time give names which were spoken.

These two realities, of both science and scripture, among many others, are where you ought focus attention, and your audience should be not the present adversaries but people who in the secular community stopped thinking about this amazing insight of sctipture now confirmed by science.

But science does not recognize the concept of a "race". That's a purely cultural distinction.

[rogero]

...


But science does not recognize the concept of a "race". That's a purely cultural distinction.

Yes, good point. The current scholarship is that there are no "races" or there are thousands of them. "Race" is really a social culture construct.

[geochron]

"Multiple working hypotheses" is a fine idea, but it's not a reason to adopt hypotheses that manifestly don't work.

Multiple working hypotheses implies having several hypotheses consistent with the data in hand. There's no advantage to having two hypotheses if one is clearly wrong when compared with existing data.

[kofh2u]

DunnySaze:

How do you know the Neanderthals could not speak?

ANSWER:
The hypothesis is an old one, perhaps in competition today with others, but anatomically it was/is thought that the vocal cords would have been located such as to preclude actual language.


Better? In what way?

ANSWER:
Homo Sapiens' brain is 600cc smaller, but if we use the principle of Adaptation to the environment as a ruler, Homos' presence in the displacement or replacement of Neanderthal would be de facto evidence of superiority.

Adding the multiple language hypothesis would suggest that language, as a survival skill, complements the former evidence of superior brains in Homos.



But science does not recognize the concept of a "race". That's a purely cultural distinction.

ANSWER:
Correction.
Race is still an open issue with scientist arguing three racial stocks and more.

In the light of this, I see scripture as equally entitle to use poetic license, if you insist. The Three Racial Stock Theory so prominent in the last generation seems acceptable, in what is essentially, a metaphorical report to future generations.

Definitive and concise statements, though open to question, here, in regard to race, in the discipline of science, I would say was appropriate.

"Human races are still extremely unstable entities in the hands of modern taxonomists, who define from 3 to 60 races. To some extent, this latitude depends on the personal preference of taxonomists, who may choose to be 'lumpers' or 'splitters.' Although there is no doubt that there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting....No single gene is therefore sufficient for classifying human populations into systematic categories." ~ L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paoli Menozzi and Alberto Piazzi, The History and Geography of Human Genes, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 19

[grmorton]

DunnySaze:

How do you know the Neanderthals could not speak?

ANSWER:
The hypothesis is an old one, perhaps in competition today with others, but anatomically it was/is thought that the vocal cords would have been located such as to preclude actual language.

See my new thread on this topic. You are sadly mistaken. The hypothesis is not an old one but was first suggested by the 1970s mistaken reconstruction of a particularly badly damaged skull.



ANSWER:
Homo Sapiens' brain is 600cc smaller, but if we use the principle of Adaptation to the environment as a ruler, Homos' presence in the displacement or replacement of Neanderthal would be de facto evidence of superiority.

Edited to note that the H.s. brain is not 600 cc smaller than N's. Modern humans average around 1300, N's 1700. That is a difference of 400 cc. The range on normal humans goes from 700cc to 2000 cc and anencephalic people do exists with normal intelligence. One guy I calculated had a brain volume of a rheusus monkey but he was busy getting A's in math. Lorber in Science Mag is the source for this.

Silly answer. By this criterion, one could say that the European is superior to the Native American. My daughter-in-law would strenuously disagree. The disappearance of the Neanderthal might be no more mysterious than interbreeding this race away by breeding with too many invading Africans. It could also be due to diseases brought into Europe which the N's had no resistance to as happened to the Native Americans.

By this logic, the Huns and Mongols were superior to Europeans by displacing them in Hungary and northern Europe.

ANSWER:
Correction.
Race is still an open issue with scientist arguing three racial stocks and more.

Race can't be defined. Any set of guidelines you set up to define a race leads to numerous conflicts with data.

[Monkey Boy]

Reflecting on the geological exchanges on TWeb, I have been struck by five observations.

1. Each and every geological perspective with a link to biblical history is treated as absurd, irrational and an affront.

What kind of treatment do you expect when those perspectives are completely at odds with the data?

2. There is an ongoing confusion of uniformity and uniformitarianism.

There is an even greater confusion between "religion" and "science".

3. Conventional geological views are given privileged status over any alternative interpretations.

Not true. Conventional geological views are only given privileged status over those alternative interpretations that fail to explain the data better than the conventional view.

4. Biblicaly-based geology is associated with the stunts of showmen and the unguarded statements of popularisers where it is easy to be critical, whereas these same critics have almost no visible ability to be critical of conventional geology.

Is it necessary to know how to make a gun in order to shoot fish in a barrel? I think not. Likewise, one does not need a graduate degree in geology to point out the misrepresentations and absurdities of "biblically-based geology".

5. Straw men are regularly set up and demolished, often with ample sprinklings of polemical declarations of victory.

Well, if it weren't so darned hard to get a creationist to make an unequivocal claim, then maybe all those straw men wouldn't be necessary.

What is the relevance of this paper to the issues we have been discussing? Very simply, the identification marks of geomythical thinking are not hard to find. Let’s look at them in turn.

1. The concept expands selectively from a narrow focus to embrace a far-reaching analysis.

In our various exchanges, who are the people who continually want to get to the big picture without first reaching any consensus on the narrow focus? Frequently, arguments are made that go from specifics to make far-reaching statements about the general case.

I believe you're misinterpreting Dickinson. He is describing overgeneralization -- applying a concept developed to explain one narrow context to explain a much broader one. What you're describing sounds like simple deductive reasoning -- if X is true in some context, what are the implications for Y and Z in the broader context?

2. It places an extra onus of argumentation upon potential detractors.

On the issues we have discussed, those seeking to develop a catastrophist approach are required to provide a complete story – whereas the view being defended is riddled with holes (of course this is not admitted) and there is thought no need to defend it rigorously because “the geological community holds this as true”.

You're twisting words here. You're not being asked for a complete story, just a reasonable story that agrees with the data. Invoking magical floods for which there is no evidence or assuming short timescales completely at odds with the data does not make for a convincing story.

And speaking of extra onus - do you think the fact that the early uniformitarian geologists were arguing against the literal "word of god" might have raised some unreasonable barriers?

3. It extrapolates from the particular to the general case by making an inductive leap.

The particular may be true – but that should not be used to extrapolate without rigorous testing. Many polemical flourishes hide these inductive leaps.

If only creationists would apply the same rigorous testing to their biblical interpretations.

4. It rejects the spirit of the familiar method of multiple working hypotheses. It posits dominance of a single perception to the exclusion of others.

This is my main complaint. Instead of welcoming different ideas, radical ideas, challenging ideas, there is a constant tendency to reject, decry, or otherwise diminish other approaches to resolving geological questions. This is, in my opinion, the clearest indicator of an anti-science mentality.

As Carl Sagan once said, "It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out." The true anti-science mentality is exhibited by those who insist that their pet ideas, utterly lacking in emprical support, be placed on the same level playing field as ideas vetted by thousands of man-years of toil and sacrifice. That is the true travesty.

5. When predictions of a geomyth fail, the characteristic response is to change the underlying assumptions, or evaluations of constraints, in ways that keep the core of the geomyth essentially intact

This is a very widespread phenomenon – the theory becomes infinitely flexible so that whatever data is produced, the underlying concept stays intact. Dickinson explains how it relates to his chosen examples – in different ways, this has been explored in our discussions. It applies to Darwinists also, because Darwinism shows all the signs of adaptation in order to retain the biomyth. The essence of science is that theories and concepts are vulnerable, and part of our scientific work is to expose our thoughts to critical examination.

Are your theories and concepts about the bible vulnerable? If not, then by your own words you are not doing science.

It is not difficult to find things to criticize within creationism. However, I am also arguing that valid criticisms do not lead to the general conclusion that all is worthless.

True enough, but creationists have nothing. There is not one speck of "creation science" that is useful for anything. Isn't that the same thing as worthless?

Dickinson does not do this with his paper – he writes to promote healthy science. That’s what I am seeking and that is what any creationist in science is seeking.

Considering how productive and successful the scientific enterprise has been in the last century, your implication that science is somehow not healthy sounds rather like a Chicken Little story.

[rogero]

... (snip) Homo Sapiens' brain is 600cc smaller, but if we use the principle of Adaptation to the environment as a ruler, Homos' presence in the displacement or replacement of Neanderthal would be de facto evidence of superiority.
(snip) ...

I think you mean 60cc, and this in on the average. Bear in mind, we have a fairly small sample size for N'tal cranial capacities -- I'm not sure if this difference is statistically significant.

R

[grmorton]

I think you mean 60cc, and this in on the average. Bear in mind, we have a fairly small sample size for N'tal cranial capacities -- I'm not sure if this difference is statistically significant.

R

I know you are speaking to Kofh2u but I made a mistake when I wrote what I did about cranial capacities of the N's. I always try to correct my mistakes publically. I didn't look it up in my data base and I was thinking of the largest N. cranium which is in the 1750 cc range. After looking it up, humans average around 1350 cc Neanderthals about 1450.

Sorry for my error.

[Kulindrichnus]

I know you are speaking to Kofh2u but I made a mistake when I wrote what I did about cranial capacities of the N's. I always try to correct my mistakes publically. I didn't look it up in my data base and I was thinking of the largest N. cranium which is in the 1750 cc range. After looking it up, humans average around 1350 cc Neanderthals about 1450.

Sorry for my error.

David Tyler would do well to follow this example of personal and intellectual honesty. He has two outstanding mistakes on the books (that I am concerned with): the fact that Filey Brigg is not monospecific, and the fact that accretionary lapilli are not raindrops. He has no room left for manouvre on either issue and an immediate public retraction is in order. However he chooses to start another long rambling diatribe against the fantasies he concocts about the working methods of a subject he does not understand.

Why do you choose the path of cowardice, and not of honesty, David? Will you not concede these honest mistakes because you have promulgated them in so many different places, to so many vulnerable minds? Or can you not concede these mistakes becase you know they are not honest ones?

Science, like Christianity, is all about seeking out and correcting our failings, honest or otherwise, in order to step ever nearer an unreachable truth. Until you, David, gather the courage to own up to your own faults, you stand as a hypocrite, as a non-scientist, and as a non-Christian in asking others to do what you will not do, and address the failings you lay at their door.

Come to the board as an honest man, and then we will talk. The example has been set for you.

K

[DunnySaze]

I know you are speaking to Kofh2u but I made a mistake when I wrote what I did about cranial capacities of the N's. I always try to correct my mistakes publically. I didn't look it up in my data base and I was thinking of the largest N. cranium which is in the 1750 cc range. After looking it up, humans average around 1350 cc Neanderthals about 1450.

Sorry for my error.

Yes, Neanderthal brains were a shade larger than modern human brains, but mainly because they were a shade larger than modern humans on average over all. As seen in the image below (click link) the homonid species tend towards larger brains as we come forward in time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/brainsize.gif

[dtyler]

Interesting thread, and thanks for bringing Dickinson's article to my attention. I largely agree with Dickinson's analysis of mythic thinking. For example, I don't deal with hot spots much and I don't follow the arguments on them much, so I carry around an overly simplistic mental image that I rely on too much. I therefore of course agree with David that shaking up our mental models and questioning our assumptions is always a good thing. Let me start by acknowledging my appreciation for David's last paragraph, and agreeing with the spirit of his last three sentences.
Thank you for this feedback. I have only just been able to get back to TWeb after posting the starter - and I have to say that the responses have been predictable. I am glad that we are agreed about the value to science of continually challenging assumptions and mental models.

Nonetheless, with respect to David's five observations: (quote omitted)
1. No, only the more obviously wrong ones. I agree with HiddenOne that the recent claim that the Black Sea may have flooded catastrophically and could have thereby given rise to widespread legends about a global flood was received with interest by geologists. Israeli geologists often come out with findings that have biblical significance, and those are usually viewed with interest.
Yes - although my comments were with the TWeb discussions in mind.
Regarding uniformity abd uniformitarianism:
2. As I see it, you have an aberrant view of what goes on in geology today in regard to those topics.
Philosophically, I am taking the position of Stephen Jay Gould. There is scope for different interpretations about what goes on in geology today - and I am sure Gould would be less critical than I. Nevertheless, I think he would view the feedback comments I have received as deficient in understanding the issues and as condoning the status quo.

3. Agreed, but unusual claims require exceptional documentation.
5. I will agree that many scientific papers have a tendency to overstate pre-exisitng problems, oversimplify their opponents, and exaggerate the importance and certainty of their results, and if they don't more popular media accounts certainly will. However, that isn't what you meant. The way I see it, the strawmen, empty rhetoric, and hollow claims of victory that you mention in your accusation is almost the standard modus operandi for creationists and their ilk.
Please bear in mind that I am talking about the TWeb discussions, not scientific papers. I am wresting with the problems of engaging in debate - and I have basically concluded it is impossible. The "magma crystallisation" exchange is a case in point. Another that has been answered but has resurfaced on this thread is the unbalanced ecosystem evidenced in the Filey Brigg strata. Why there should be outrage because I used the popular "fossilised raindrops" instead of the technical term "accretionary lapilli" is a mystery to me - if it is not a rhetorical device.

I agree with HiddenOne that flood geology acted as a severely constricting straightjacket for geology for many years.
What are you referring to: the Diluvium? It did lead to some cul-de-sac thinking regarding the Quaternary - but this was hardly a straightjacket for geology? Gould's analysis is far more pertinent: the catastrophists were actually the better field geologists! They did not try to force-fit evidences into the Hutton/Lyell mould.

When a paradigm fails it does take a little while to sort out the mess, to convince all the old guard, to get over feeling a need to save portions of the old terminology to rationalize or synthesize the old & new paradigms, to save the core of the old concept. This causes problems, but it does mean that once the failed aspects of the old paradigm are killed, they are definitively dead and are gone forever. (Proof is tentative, but disproof is forever.)
Rarely are the old guard convinced. They often have to die off. But I am basically with you here - paradigm changes do occur and we would do well to be sensitive to paradigm issues and the way they affect science.

Geosynclinal theory had some very good points to it, and it was not entirely wrong. On the other hand, plate tectonics and tectonostratigraphy is clearly vastly superior. As a result no one runs around trying to apply geosynclinal concepts and intepretations to the rocks any more. Anyone who did so (except in certain very specific contexts, such as the history of geology) would be justly viewed as flogging a dead horse, wasting time and effort on an irrelevancy.
Agreed. From the vantage point of now, we can see this clearly. It is much more difficult to see it when we are in the midst of a debate about paradigms.

Flood geology failed catastrophically as a paradigm long ago. It recieved an examination that was more than fair, given the tenacity with which its proponents clung to religious precepts, but it flunked definitively. Its failures are still valid, and no new relevant evidence has come forward to justify a reconsideration. Flood geology and attempting to rationalize the bible with geology were responsible for massive misdirection of geological investigations, so today they are viewed a priori with distaste, because, once a better paradigm is in hand, the old one can only retard further progress. This is exactly how a chemist would view a proposal to revive alchemical research. (Note that today we can in fact transform one element into another, but this quite propoerly does not justify going back to alchemical methods, goals, or terminology.) Some limitations are appropriate, proper, and well merited.
My own view is that we have *never* had a geological community that has seriously considered Flood geology. This is because the Baconian "Two books" approach was accepted by all the early geologists. They did not look to Scripture for any insight or guidance in their geological thinking. There are examples of early geologists who considered the Flood a historical event, but this never became a framework for interpretation. It was always a veneer - a cultural add on. I do not think Flood Geology can be charged with "massive misdirection of geological investigations" - if you want to defend this, please give some specifics.

That being said, multiple working hypotheses are alive and well in geology departments, and assumptions are constantly under question. I agree that asssumptions do too often tend to be queried within the reigning paradigm, but regressing to the failed paradigm of flood geology and a short time frame is not the answer.
I am in basic agreement re multiple working hypotheses in the academic community. Where it is severely lacking is on TWeb.

In response to David's specific subsequent points, I see the creationists as the ones straightjacketed by a narrow focus, being unwilling to consider conflicting details, being cognitively dissonant bewtween different parts of their own arguments.
In my post, I did openly acknowledge that these traits can be found among creationists. We have a lot of work to do to promote a genuinely scholarly mindset. Whereas others would say this of all of us, I am also encouraged by a growing community of creationist scholars.

I agree that endless ad hoc rescuing of a bad idea is itself a bad idea. [snip] The concerns that David expresses that evolution could be ad hocced when it ought to be scrapped are legitimate, but so far all the critiques that I've heard creationists raise are fairly straightforward misunderstandings or misrepresentations at various levels of sophistication. As far as I can see, evolution and geology are receiving appropriate levels and types of questioning from within science, whereas creationsim is providing not critical thinking but obfuscation and misrepresentation.
Let me say that this is enough to develop a serious discussion. That is what this thread is asking for - and, apart from your post, there is no sign of it emerging.

[SteveF]

Another that has been answered but has resurfaced on this thread is the unbalanced ecosystem evidenced in the Filey Brigg strata.
I have asked you on numerous occasions how you define an unbalanced ecosystem. i think its important because your understanding of ecology has been shown to be severely limited.

What are you referring to: the Diluvium? It did lead to some cul-de-sac thinking regarding the Quaternary - but this was hardly a straightjacket for geology? Gould's analysis is far more pertinent: the catastrophists were actually the better field geologists! They did not try to force-fit evidences into the Hutton/Lyell mould.
Oh the irony of a creationist discussing force fitting evidence.

I am in basic agreement re multiple working hypotheses in the academic community. Where it is severely lacking is on TWeb.
So what? TWeb is a silly little internet site, why does it concern you so much?

Let me say that this is enough to develop a serious discussion. That is what this thread is asking for - and, apart from your post, there is no sign of it emerging.
Your arrogance and lack of self knowledge is astonishing.

[dtyler]

I have asked you on numerous occasions how you define an unbalanced ecosystem. i think its important because your understanding of ecology has been shown to be severely limited.
I have already posted a lengthy explanation on this starting with Surtsey, and commenting on Krakatoa and Mt St Helens. You did not like what I said and responded:
Your viewpoints on succession and presumably how you apply them to the geologic record are out of date and do not match reality. Classical succession is rare and the rate of succession varies immensely. It can be fast but it can be relatively slow, particularly depending upon how you define the climax community.

Trying to apply these complex ideas to the geological record when they are not fully understood now is pointless. Therefore talk of a 'balanced' or 'mature' ecosystems is meaningless as I'm not sure they can be applied to modern systems let alone ones in the geologic record.
The first paragraph above says I am out of date - which I am quite happy to accept. I make no pretence to be up-to-date with the literature. I fully accept that the rate of succession and the nature of the developing communities varies immensely - that should be immediately apparent from the examples I gave.
The second paragraph is weak. We do not have to understand things fully to recognise a succession. Furthermore, we have to do this all the time today - anyone involved with land management has to interpret growth and respond to it.

[Kulindrichnus]

Another that has been answered but has resurfaced on this thread is the unbalanced ecosystem evidenced in the Filey Brigg strata. Why there should be outrage because I used the popular "fossilised raindrops" instead of the technical term "accretionary lapilli" is a mystery to me - if it is not a rhetorical device.

Nowhere have you used the term "fossilized raindrops". That is an outright lie on your part. In any case the term, as popularly and properly used, refers to pits or impressions formed by raindrops impacting soft sediment. Nowhere in my experience or a google search can I find the term used to describe a constructional particulate object such as a lapillus. The suggestion that it is, and that it is either popular or proper to do so, is another fabrication by you. We will add those two lies to the list of retractions you need to make before anyone takes you seriously.

You have answered a question that I did not ask about Filey Brigg, which is disingeneous at best and dishonest at worst. Do not confuse the issue- you are the object of scrutiny, not the Jurassic of the Yorkshire coast. I will put the question another way. Do you have the courage to disown views that others have falsified? Demonstrating that you do is the only way to join the scientific comunity which you so long to be part of. I am holding out a hand to you over Filey Brigg. Shall I pull you aboard, or will you wait for Noah to come and save you from drowning?

K

[HiddenOne]

What are you referring to: the Diluvium? It did lead to some cul-de-sac thinking regarding the Quaternary - but this was hardly a straightjacket for geology? Gould's analysis is far more pertinent: the catastrophists were actually the better field geologists! They did not try to force-fit evidences into the Hutton/Lyell mould.


They found, many of them, that the flood was not supported by the geologic record. 150+ years of geologic observation has only reinforced the fact that a global flood did not occur on a 6-10K year old earth.

[Monkey Boy]

My own view is that we have *never* had a geological community that has seriously considered Flood geology. This is because the Baconian "Two books" approach was accepted by all the early geologists.

Horsehockey. Flood geology has never been seriously considered because it is not supported by the data.

I am in basic agreement re multiple working hypotheses in the academic community. Where it is severely lacking is on TWeb.

Agreed. Every time a creationist offers an alternate working hypothesis and is asked to provide the data to support it, we are greeted with silence.

In my post, I did openly acknowledge that these traits can be found among creationists. We have a lot of work to do to promote a genuinely scholarly mindset. Whereas others would say this of all of us, I am also encouraged by a growing community of creationist scholars.

Me too. My favorite is Kurt Wise:

"Given what we currently think we understand about the world, the majority of the scientific evidence favors an old earth and universe, not a young one. I would therefore say that anyone who claims that the earth is young for scientific evidence alone is scientifically ignorant."

Let me say that this is enough to develop a serious discussion. That is what this thread is asking for - and, apart from your post, there is no sign of it emerging.

If you want a serious discussion, David, then show us the empirical data that supports your young-earth global flood claims. Until then, cut the persecution complex, please.

[SteveF]

I have already posted a lengthy explanation on this starting with Surtsey, and commenting on Krakatoa and Mt St Helens. You did not like what I said and responded
No you did not provide a lengthy explanation. I asked the following:



David,

Could you define a balanced ecosystem please
to which you responded:

Balanced" and "mature" are IMO synonyms. At the turn of the last century, biologists became interested in ecology and ecosystems. People realised that if environments changed with time, then the ecosystems would change too. An ecological succession can be defined as the "change in the composition of a community through time at a particular location".

Now to me thats not really an adequate response to the question. It gives me absolutely no indication of how you would go out into the field and determine whether the site is 'unbalanced.' Sorry if I've missed something but I don't really know what you personally mean when you define an ecosystem as 'unbalanced.'

The first paragraph above says I am out of date - which I am quite happy to accept. I make no pretence to be up-to-date with the literature.
Admittedly we can't all be full up to date with the literature but its rather dishonest of you to come onto these boards armed with arguments based on out of date theories and then lecture us about changing our methodologies. Furthermore, I would expact you to have an excellent command of theory when you are proposing something that contradicts utterly mainstream thinking, as the recolonisation model of earth history does.

I fully accept that the rate of succession and the nature of the developing communities varies immensely - that should be immediately apparent from the examples I gave.
Yes but you don't seem to understand the implications of high variability in ecological processes and the implications of this for producing generalised theory.

The second paragraph is weak. We do not have to understand things fully to recognise a succession. Furthermore, we have to do this all the time today - anyone involved with land management has to interpret growth and respond to it.
You have missed my point (or ignored it). I am arguing that ecology is such that it is not possible, even in the modern era, to producing sweeping statements. It is simply too complex and too variable. To then apply these sweeping statements (particularly when they are behind the times as yours are) to ancient environments is meaningless.

Furthermore, modern ecological models, even if they were reasonably generalised, should be applied with great caution to the palaeoecological record because their intricacies are innapropriate for the level of resolution possible.

[SteveF]

Let me say that this is enough to develop a serious discussion. That is what this thread is asking for - and, apart from your post, there is no sign of it emerging.
Oh and while I'm here, why do I get the feeling that a debate is only meaningful or constructive if its conducted according to your blinkered point of view.

In my opinion, a potentially interesting and constructive debate would be one in which you engaged with Glen on one of the many flood threads he starts.

[Kulindrichnus]

Now to me thats not really an adequate response to the question.

Of course not. But you are much more familiar with ecological science than David is. Creationists know full well that the devil is in the details, and people with more knowledge than them will mince them up and deliver the world to satan. Is that what you want? eh? Is it? :flaming:

:wink: K

[grmorton]

My own view is that we have *never* had a geological community that has seriously considered Flood geology. This is because the Baconian "Two books" approach was accepted by all the early geologists. They did not look to Scripture for any insight or guidance in their geological thinking. There are examples of early geologists who considered the Flood a historical event, but this never became a framework for interpretation. It was always a veneer - a cultural add on.

No, David, having worked in the geoscience industry for 30+ years now, I can assure you that the reason it isn't taken seriously is because YEC has no answers to problems. Look at all the posts I have posted and then consider how few of those posts have any YECs even attempted an answer. A paradigm which is asked questions but produces no answers is not very useful.

As to those early geologists, I would disagree that it was a cultural add on, a veneer. It was basic to Buckland's Reliquiae Diluvianae, which argued for a global flood. Past Buckland's time, however, the 'flood geologists' became flakier and flakier. More and more it became obvious that observational data meant nothing to the young-earth creationists, and it still doesn't mean anything to them today. Note in the following two passages that Granville Penn is withdrawing from reality--that is to say, withdrawing from any impact of observational data. He wrote:


”. . .but, if Moses has recorded any facts respecting the primitive history of this Globe, paramount and fundamental facts, such as those which have been above recited, then it would be as foolish as it would be fruitless to deny, that he has imparted to us geological facts. To geologies in exclusion of those facts, would be to geologies un-Mosaically; and to geologies with inclusion of those facts, would be to geologies Mosaically, or, in conformity with the authentic information communicated to us by Moses; and, the geology grounded on those communications will be rightfully called Mosaical.”

and

“To extricate themselves from the labour and embarrassment of choosing between two such different and adverse parties, some inquirers have attempted to employ them both; and, with that view have endeavoured, by various schemes of accommodation, to effect a reconciliation between them. But, the result has always been, that which must ever attend measures of undue compromise, and concession; namely, perpetual inconsistency in the progress, and ultimate failure in the issue. There can be no real reconciliation between positive contradictories, no compromise between truth and falsehood; and therefore, since the generality of inquirers have exclusively followed one or other of these two guides, it is manifest, that one division of them must have been drawn into an error of the most extensive and injurious operation: for, as Cicero long since pronounced, ‘labi, errare, nescire, decipi, et malum et turpe ducimus;’ and certainly, there are few subjects in which the force of that maxim can fall more heavily, than in this.”
“In this dilemma, there is only one course that wisdom will counsel, or reason sanction; and that is, to bring the pretensions of the two opponents fairly to an issue, by applying them both to some common and agreed test: by the decision of which test, we may be able to ascertain the validity of each and thus at length to determine conclusively which of them is true, and which is false.”
“And, the task is not so difficult as it might at first sight appear, from the voluminous mass of geological disquisition, the intricacy of the subjects which it embraces, and the hard words with which it has entrenched itself. We have no necessity to embroil our minds with all the multitudinous details of that disquisition, nor to obscure our language by its numerous exotic ‘terminologies, we need only to extract the root, or fundamental principle, on which the bodies of the two geologies severally rest; to apply each to the common test, and afterwards, to abide by that geology, whose superior validity shall be established by the authority of that criterion.”

and

“Whatever diversity may appear to subsist between them, they will be found absolutely identified in their fundamental principle, which is this: that sensible phenomena alone, are sufficient to reveal the mode of primitive or first formations.”


So, what he proposes doing is setting up a test which is philosophical rather than observational in nature. He has withdrawn from reality.

Note that this was 1823 long before evolution and indeed 7-8 years before Lyell wrote his Principles of Geology and the argument was already going.


John Murray, a self-described geologists violated the laws of pressure by suggesting that the waters of the flood re-entered the interior of the earth.

What has become of the surplus water of the deluge? Questions are easily put; but a fact once established cannot be doubted or denied, because there may be a difficulty in accounting for the phenomenon. For any thing we know to the contrary, the diluvial waters may have retreated into the profound abysses of the earth; besides, much would disappear as water of crystallization, in crystalline rocks, and much, also, as water of composition, in sedimentary rocks. I believe, too, it is a matter of calculation, that if ‘the high hills under the whole heavens,’ were leveled, and ‘cast into the sea,’ the waters would circumfuse the globe; and in the important estimate before us, let it be remembered that the axis of the earth’s revolution has suffered no change.” This fact, first determined by Sir Isaac Newton, has been amply confirmed by the researches of the Count Laplace.”

Now, even in 1840, one could calculate that a huge mass of water can not displace more dense rock without having a lot of pressure associated with it. This too is a retreat from observational reality.

He also didn't beleive that the earth got hotter as one went deeper

“There is a fact stated in Scripture of considerable importance when considered in this relation: ‘the fountains of the great deep were broken up:’—this unequivocally implies the issue of torrents from the bosom of the globe; and it seems to us, more likely that the nucleus of the earth is an abyss of water than a lake of fire, however, the latter view of it might coalesce with Buffon’s notion, of which that of Hutton was a more elaborate transcript."

Even in 1840 such a wierd view was, well, wierd. And the young-earthers have never strayed far from wierd ever since.

Charles Burton believed the same thing:

“Two principal causes are assigned by Moses, viz.—The fountains of the great deep were broken up,’ and ‘the windows of heavens were opened.’ These, when properly considered, will open a field of view relative to this catastrophe which will more than meet our wishes.
“By the ‘Fountains of the great deep’ we understand those immense reservoirs of water which form vast oceans, together with those which lie in or under the crust of the earth, say within a few miles of its surface.”

And another guy with the same strange view:


“I refer to Rev. William Kirby, evidently a throough entomologist and a sincere Christian. But he adopts the opinion, not only that there exists a subterranean abyss of waters, but a subterranean metropolis of animals, where the huge leviathians, the gigantic saurians, dug out of the rocks by the geologist, still survive; and this he endeavors to prove from the Bible. For this purpose he quotes the passage in Psalms, though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.”

sorry, David, you can't claim that the rejection of YEC was due to bias on the part of real geologists. It was due to the wierdness and lack of real answers coming from YECs.

[SedRocks]

....the catastrophists were actually the better field geologists! They did not try to force-fit evidences into the Hutton/Lyell mould.

........There are examples of early geologists who considered the Flood a historical event, but this never became a framework for interpretation. It was always a veneer - a cultural add on. I do not think Flood Geology can be charged with "massive misdirection of geological investigations" - if you want to defend this, please give some specifics.


Rats, Glenn beat me to the first mention of Buckland, but I'm going to go ahead and talk about him anyway. Buckland is an excellent example of a diluvial geologist who was a very good field geologist. His taphonomic studies were 150 years ahead of their time. However, his reputation was severely damaged in a prolonged debate that he lost over "the drift", which (according to my admittedly not first-hand understanding of the relevant literature) was exactly an hypothesis born out of the Diluvial Geology framework. If he hadn't been side-tracked into that dead end due to pursuit of a wrong paradigm, who knows what else he could have accomplished. In my pantheon of geological heroes, I view him almost up with Henry Cllifton Sorby in terms of originality, capability, and insight relative to the knowledge of his time, and maybe even a step above Derek Ager, whom I also regard very highly.

...... Rarely are the old guard convinced. They often have to die off. But I am basically with you here - paradigm changes do occur and we would do well to be sensitive to paradigm issues and the way they affect science.
....... It is much more difficult to see it when we are in the midst of a debate about paradigms.
No disputes here on that. (I debated putting the 'old guard' quote in my post.). However, I see no value in flogging a dead horse.


Glenn, a lovely bit of work with the old literature. Very impressive, and informative. However, it may be a bit unfair to slam Murray in 1840 for talking about water at the center of the earth, given that Dana's description in 1873 of 'the underlying fire-sea' is only marginally more advanced & realistic.

[grmorton]

Glenn, a lovely bit of work with the old literature. Very impressive, and informative. However, it may be a bit unfair to slam Murray in 1840 for talking about water at the center of the earth, given that Dana's description in 1873 of 'the underlying fire-sea' is only marginally more advanced & realistic.

Thanks for the kind words. I haven't read Dana's 1873 book. But from what I see above (which obviously isn't in context), I would interpret the 'fire-sea' as magma or some such. That wouldn't be too far from what is down there-- a sea of fire. But then, I wax poetic and it is time to wane.

Do you have a fuller quotation to see what he was speaking of?

[SedRocks]

Dana, J.D., 1873, On some results of the earth's contraction from cooling, including a discussion of the origin of mountains, and the nature of the earth's interior. American Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 5, p. 423-443, v. 6, p.6-14, 104-115, and 161-172.

The fire-sea concept recognized that magma cones out of volcanoes, and I think Dana knew that deep mines were hot. He also knew that metamorphism happened at depth and needed heat as well as pressure, hence it had to be hot down there. Beyond that, the concept is (as I recall, and this may be unfair to Dana) fairly hazy.

[grmorton]

Dana, J.D., 1873, On some results of the earth's contraction from cooling, including a discussion of the origin of mountains, and the nature of the earth's interior. American Journal of Science, ser. 3, v. 5, p. 423-443, v. 6, p.6-14, 104-115, and 161-172.

The fire-sea concept recognized that magma cones out of volcanoes, and I think Dana knew that deep mines were hot. He also knew that metamorphism happened at depth and needed heat as well as pressure, hence it had to be hot down there. Beyond that, the concept is (as I recall, and this may be unfair to Dana) fairly hazy.

I suspect it was known back in classical times that the deeper one went in a mine, the hotter it got. Indeed, the 19th century geologists had a pretty good idea of what was below their feet. It was certainly known to Lyell in the 1830s..


"Many observations and experiments appear to countenance the idea, that in descending from the surface to those slight depths to which man can penetrate, there is a progressive increase of heat;" (Lyell, Principles of Geology edited by James Secord, (New York: Penguin Books,1997), p. 82).

Edward Hitchcock, the guy who found the dino tracks in the Connecticut valley wrote in 1851 (I have an 1857 printing -- the twelfth) of why he thought volcanic eruptions were part of God's plan (Hitchcock was a professor of Geology at Amherst).

"In order to make out this position, I shall not contend that all the earth's interior, beneath fifty or one hundred miles, is in a state of fusion. For even the most able and decided of those geologists who object to such an inference, admit that oceans of melted matter do exist beneath the surface. And if so, how liable would vast accumulations of heat be, if there were no safety-valves through the crust, to rend asunder even a whole continent? Volcanoes are those safety-valves, and more than two hundred of them are scattered over the earth's surface, forming vent-holes into the heated interior." Edward Hitchcock, The Religoin of Geolgoy and its Connected Sciences, Boston: Phillips, Sampson, and Co., 1957, p. 207-208

And by 1884, there was a lot of sophistication about the earth's heat flow:

"We can help ourselves to figure this effect of beds of rock in raising the heat of rockes below them, if we remember that over all the earth's surface a constant flow of heat is streaming out through the earth and going away among the stars. Enough of this heat escapes each year, from every square mile of the earth's surface, to boil a gret many barrels of water. If the reader could hap any kind of rocks on the ground where he stands, so that the surface would be covered to the depth of two miles, the water in the soil would, on account of this blanket of rock, rise slowly to a greater heat than that of boiling water." Nathaniel Shaler, First Book in Geology, Boston: D. C. Heath & Co, 1887, p. 91.

The book was first published in 1884.


Dana's idea sounds a bit similar to what was said above and what was said about the core of the earth a few years later. Thus, I am not so sure that the ideas were so hazy.

"About 1890 Wiechert proposed the hypothesis that the core of the earth is in a fluid (molten) state. The molten-core hypothesis was proved with seismological evidence by Oldham in 1906." J. Spar, Earth, Sea, and Air: A Survey of the Geophysical Sciences, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co. 1962), p. 52

it wasn't until later that a solid inner core was discovered:

"In 1936, Lehmann presented the theory based on seismological evidence, that the entire core may not be fluid, and that there may be a solid inner core at the earth's center." Ibid.

[dtyler]

Rats, Glenn beat me to the first mention of Buckland, but I'm going to go ahead and talk about him anyway. Buckland is an excellent example of a diluvial geologist who was a very good field geologist. His taphonomic studies were 150 years ahead of their time. However, his reputation was severely damaged in a prolonged debate that he lost over "the drift", which (according to my admittedly not first-hand understanding of the relevant literature) was exactly an hypothesis born out of the Diluvial Geology framework.
I fully accept that "the drift" was born out of the Diluvial Geology framework. That was IMO clear from what I wrote.
"There are examples of early geologists who considered the Flood a historical event, but this never became a framework for interpretation. It was always a veneer - a cultural add on. I do not think Flood Geology can be charged with "massive misdirection of geological investigations" - if you want to defend this, please give some specifics."

The "diluvium" never became a framework - it was a case of fitting the Flood into an existing framework. When it was reinterpreted, there was no rethinking of the foundations. The framework did not change.

Glenn, a lovely bit of work with the old literature. Very impressive, and informative. However, it may be a bit unfair to slam Murray in 1840 for talking about water at the center of the earth, given that Dana's description in 1873 of 'the underlying fire-sea' is only marginally more advanced & realistic.
The problem with Glenn's quotes is that they refer to the "Scriptural Geologists" who no one regards as representative of mainstream geological thinking. I'm not averse to discussing these writings, but I do not see how they cast light on the central claim that early geologists seriously looked at Flood Geology before rejecting it. My point was that early geologists had already adopted the Baconian maxim of having two books that occupy separate domains: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. I can point to some early geologists who were prepared to invoke the Flood - but they never developed a coherent framework for understanding geological data because Bacon's guidelines steered them away from this approach.

[Kulindrichnus]

I can point to some early geologists who were prepared to invoke the Flood - but they never developed a coherent framework for understanding geological data because Bacon's guidelines steered them away from this approach.

Then if your point is that flood 'geology' was not given a fair hearing as a paradigm by the Victorians, I remind you that you have had ample opportunity to redress the balance by providing Monkey Boy with satisfaction in his long-standing attempt to extract from you empirical data for the genesis flood. There is, of course, no other means by which you can validate your assertion that Baconian ideas undermined the establishment of a flood paradigm in preference to this clear counterclaim I offer- that flood 'geology', of and entirely within itself, is incapable of offering a self-consistent, coherent framework to us, regardless of what Bacon, Buckland, Bilbo Baggins or David Tyler thinks of it.

That you have not taken the opportunity presented, but instead prefer to complain about an iniquity that you refuse to demonstrate, reflects- as usual- badly upon your integrity.

Get on with it.

K

PS have you decided to retract your incorrect and simplified lyellian assumptions about accretionary lapilli yet?

[aniso]

The problem with Glenn's quotes is that they refer to the "Scriptural Geologists" who no one regards as representative of mainstream geological thinking.

Then what paradigm was representative of mainstream thinking?

I'm not averse to discussing these writings, but I do not see how they cast light on the central claim that early geologists seriously looked at Flood Geology before rejecting it. My point was that early geologists had already adopted the Baconian maxim of having two books that occupy separate domains: the book of nature and the book of Scripture.

From everything you post, I assume that this (keeping two books) meets with your approval then. So, what's wrong? They kept two books, considered the alternatives and eventually chose naturalism. This is exactly what you said does not happen in science...

I can point to some early geologists who were prepared to invoke the Flood - but they never developed a coherent framework for understanding geological data because Bacon's guidelines steered them away from this approach.

Or could it be because no coherent framework was possible? In fact, flood geology virtually predicts an incoherrent framework, and this probably guided early thinking. It was a self-fulfilling prediction. Solid scientific work showed that there is a framework, however, completely refuting the need for the 'scriptural book.'

My interpretation here is that even back then, there was little to support flood geology so it never 'rose to the top' of the heap of theories. According to what you post, it was actually superseded before it gained ascendency. Frankly, I can accept that.

[grmorton]

The problem with Glenn's quotes is that they refer to the "Scriptural Geologists" who no one regards as representative of mainstream geological thinking. I'm not averse to discussing these writings, but I do not see how they cast light on the central claim that early geologists seriously looked at Flood Geology before rejecting it. My point was that early geologists had already adopted the Baconian maxim of having two books that occupy separate domains: the book of nature and the book of Scripture. I can point to some early geologists who were prepared to invoke the Flood - but they never developed a coherent framework for understanding geological data because Bacon's guidelines steered them away from this approach.

I wish you would actually cite someone from that period saying what you say they say. I find it so much more easy to deal with documented statements rather than undocumented assertions.