From: kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus)
Subject: Re: History or Science?
Reply-To: kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus)
Organization: Southwestern Bell
Distribution: world,local
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 14:33:32 GMT

In article <13SEP199221112905@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.181518.11696@swbatl.sbc.com>, kamphau@oktext.UUCP (Mark Kamphaus) writes...
>>I am curious as to why creation "science" has focused on
>>"science" instead of history.

Thanks to Jim and Bruce for responding to my post, but I guess I
misphrased what my curiousity is about so let me restate my question
in a different way.

Given the creationist axiom that "God created everything *with* a
history" then why would a creationist expect science to find something
other than that "created" history?  Science relies somewhat on observation,
and those observations would reflect the events created and embedded in the 
object under observation.  I see light from a star that I can measure
as being >6000 light years away, but in order to have a 6K yr old earth,
the star and light represent a created history which is indistinguishable
from our reality.  I have used science to determine the distance of the star.
It appears that there are two choices.  One, I distort the science so that
anything prior to the 6K boundary uses different principles (like a change in
the speed of light) or two, I say that science is consistent across the
boundary but that it is not useful for the purpose of *history* as it only
reveals the *events* that form the created history.
I see creation science doing the former and do not understand why
that would be the focus as it appears to me that it contradicts the
belief in a created history.  I would not find it contridictory if the
belief was that everything was created *without* a history but changes
to basic scientific principles through time cause us to distort
our measurements. 
The second option would simply say that science is unable to distinguish
the 6K boundary and that anything contrary to the 6K boundary is merely
a description of the created history.  Science is moot for events prior
to 6K and after 6K we have a written history to rely upon, so *history*
should teach the views of creationism.

Lionel Tun, I believe gave the example of the 100yr old tree suddenly appearing
in his garden.  I contend that the tree was transplanted and would point to
things like the hole where a 100yr old tree that looked identical to the one in
his garden used to be, various pieces of heavy equipment in the area, the
disturbed soil around the base of the tree and a large pile of dirt that also
appeared about the same time and is consistent in size with the rootball of the
tree.  The example was supposed to show that the tree was created with age and
only appeared 100yrs old.  My contentions, I'm sure, would just be more of the
created history.  So in doing "good" science, I conclude that the tree had
100 rings and that based on 1 ring/year the tree is 100yrs old.  This is *wrong*
historically, because my "good" science couldn't distinguish between
real and created history, and the "true" history is that the tree is one day old.
It seems counterproductive to then argue that what *science* should have
really discovered was that a seed underwent a localized time distortion
equivalent to 100yrs and that this is really a 100yr old tree.
This would be the same as saying that light was created in transit, but then
argue that the speed of light changed in order for the light to get
from its source to the earth.  The first statement cannot be addressed
by science, the second can.  The two statements cannot both be true.

So to restate my question, why is creationism focus on science to try to
reveal something apart from what they claim to be a *created* history
instead of making science a moot issue by claiming that it cannot assertain
the 6K boundary and then seeking to express their beliefs as history?

mark