Skip to content
Science, as I understand it, is not about reaching absolute knowledge, but rather, in as reliable and measured a manner as possible, gathering and critically evaluating information about reality, past and present, with an ability to reason from evaluated information to predict results of specific investigation. Discussion of the past can, I believe, be science, if the reliability of the information is evaluated in accord with well reasoned, logical rules. When an archeologist, seeing the evidences in documentation, climate, material finds at digs, etc. predicts finds of a specific type in another direction, it is science. The fact that there is a higher level of uncertainty involved in the data than that held in physics or chemistry does not make archeology not science. It is well known as an observed, documented fact that a man named Nobel invented dynamite, but no experiment in physics or chemistry will demonstrate the fact. Eyewitness testimony is next after experiment in establishing fact. Ongoing principles of reality can be tested by experiment and witnessed. If those principles have operated differently in the past, no experiment in the present will establish it. Testimony and present circumstance are the only things able to support the knowledge, and that is always less reliable than repeatable demonstration.
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design