Faith, this is my advice as to how you could frame your argument in a scientific way. I replied to my own message and pulled out relevant points so I could add further comments where necessary.
HBD writes:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with forming alternate hypotheses. In fact, that process is vital to science. However, the more accepted the current theory, the better the alternate hypothesis needs to be. It can't just explain one little piece better than the current theory, it has to explain ALL of the data as well or better. Sometimes theories do have holes in them or uncertainties. An alternate hypothesis needs to not only address the uncertainties, but also the certainties as well.
Sometimes an alternate hypothesis explains one part of the data very, very well - even better than the current theory, but unless it can explain ALL the data as well or better than the current theory, it won't be accepted.
HBD writes:
An alternative hypothesis should start like this:
The current theory fails to explain phenomenon [X] because of [list of reasons]. However, my hypothesis provides a better explanation for this phenomenon.
HBD writes:
Another point. Simply denying the current theory is not sufficient to overturn it. Here is a list of the reasons I have seen you insert into [list of reasons] above.
- It happened in the unwitnessed past, so no one can be certain.
- That evidence doesn't prove anything.
- Billions of years doesn't make any sense.
- Anyone should be able to look at this cross section of the GC and see that it didn't take billions of years to form.
- The Bible says the earth is only 6,000 years old and a worldwide flood occurred 4,300 years ago.
Those are poor reasons to give if you want your alternate hypothesis to be considered.
This point is very important. There needs to be justification for proposing an alternate hypothesis. "The current theory doesn't make sense", "The Bible says", or "I can tell by just looking that the current theory is wrong" will not go very far to convince people that you have a legitimate, scientific reason for proposing an alternate hypothesis. Instead, what
data, what
evidence does the current theory NOT explain or provide a weak explanation for?
HBD writes:
As I said, alternative hypotheses are a vital part of science. In fact, I would suggest that without alternate hypotheses we could not test anything. The hypothesis "This rock is old." would be a lousy hypothesis. A better hypothesis would be "IF this rock is old, THEN we should see [X]; IF this rock is not old (young), THEN we should see [Y]. The two hypotheses can be directly compared to determine which can better predict an expected observation.
A common way to propose an alternate hypothesis is to use a null hypothesis, which we will call H
0, to test against. H
0 is simply a statement that the hypothesis, which we call H
1 is NOT true. H
0 says nothing about what IS true, simply that H
1 is NOT true.
The problem is, rather than supporting H
1 with evidence, creationists typically put their efforts into showing that H
0 is not true. However, showing that H
0 is false does not make H
1 true.
For example, if the hypothesis is that the rocks of the GC are young, showing that the dating methods employed by current methods are faulty does NOT support the hypothesis, it is an attempt to show that H
0 is false, but says nothing about H
1. This is a flawed approach. IF H
1 cannot be supported, then H
0 is true by default, not the other way around.
HBD writes:
This new proposed hypothesis then needs to be subject to scrutiny and needs to be able to defend itself against that scrutiny. If and only IF it stands up to scrutiny will it be accepted. Also realize that the more accepted the current theory is, the more scrutiny it will suffer, BECAUSE the current theory has been accepted to be the best explanation of the evidence.
This is often the hardest part of the process to accept; no one wants their ideas torn to shreds. But this is a vital part of the process. This is the part where you will be expected to defend your hypothesis and demonstrate that it DOES explain ALL of the evidence as well or better than the current theory. The more firmly established the current theory, the more difficult this part will be because the more explanatory power the current theory has or is thought to have.
Also note that the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. You often seem put off that people keeping asking you for evidence of your claims and you complain that all anyone else offers is "stories." The trouble is that the arguments for these "stories" has been going on for the last 200 years and can now be reduced to "stories." Some of the data for these arguments is not readily accessible because it was published many years ago before the internet and is in something called books.
I am not saying that those that support the current theory do not need to provide evidence, I am saying the burden of evidence falls on the one proposing the alternate hypothesis. H
0 does NOT need to be defended, H
1 needs to be supported. Does that make sense?
And finally, despite the fact you think that there is an old earth theory that all data needs to be interpreted by, there is no such thing. That the earth is old is a
conclusion. I know you don't believe that, but it's true. The conclusions about the age of the earth come from adding up the data; A + B + C .... +Z = [Age of the Earth].
If the hypothesis is the the Grand Canyon was deposited in a single catastrophic event, then it needs to be shown that EVERY single layer was deposited by that catastrophic event. If there is any feature within the system that could not have been deposited by that catastrophic event, then the hypothesis is falsified and needs revision (perhaps setting limits as to what layers that event is responsible for). A daunting task indeed!!!
So, I recommend that you focus on one piece at a time. For example, the current theory says that one way limestone is deposited is in offshore marine environments by the accumulation of the shells of tiny, sea animals. At this point, this process is considered to be a fact and does not need to be supported for discussions like this and can simply be stated as such. So the argument could go something like this:
There is 300 feet of limestone which was deposited in a calm marine environment by the accumulation of the shells of billions of tiny marine animals. How could this have happened in a flood?
Improper, unscientific response: You can't prove that is how it was deposited, it COULD have been deposited in a flood as well. I see no problem here. Or another one, "to think that a layer represents a depositional environment is just nonsense." These responses address and attempt to call into question H
0 instead of supporting H
1, which is that limestone deposits are consistent with flood deposits.
H1 needs to be supported!
A more scientific response: Provide evidence that limestone CAN be deposited in environments that are consistent with massive floods.
That is why I advised you to take on one piece at a time.
HBD writes:
Another bit of advice; take on small pieces at a time. There is no point in trying to overturn the "Old Earth Theory" all at once. Believe it or not, that the earth is old is a
conclusion not a theory. It is a conclusion that has been reached by the accumulation of many, many pieces of data and theories about that data. Instead, choose one part of the GC, for example, and develop an alternate hypothesis about how that formed.
A good example would be the contact between the Muav and the Redwall and how the Temple Butte formation fits in.
- First describe what the current theory fails to explain.
- Then explain how your hypothesis explains those phenomenon better.
- Make some predictions that would have to be true if your hypothesis were true BUT would have to be false if the current theory were true.
- Gather objections to your hypothesis and prepare to defend them.
- Demonstrate that your hypothesis satisfies those objections. If you have to use any of the reasons from the [list of reasons] I listed above, the objections are not adequately satisfied.
- Test your predictions.
- If one of the predictions proves false OR any of the objections presented cannot be adequately addressed, either modify hypothesis or abandon it as untenable.
An unconformity is problematic for a single catastrophic event. You need to demonstrate an alternate hypothesis that supports the idea that a single catastrophic event could create a feature that looks like an unconformity.
HBD writes:
I am sincerely trying to help you here, Faith. If you truly want your ideas to be considered scientific rather than apologetic, this is the procedure you must follow. The reason no one is considering your approach scientific, is because it simply is not.
Your mantra that "we cannot know the unobserved past" puts your hypothesis firmly on non-scientific grounds. Science deals with what we CAN know. Current hypotheses tell us what we CAN know about the past. If it is wrong and there is a better hypothesis, then you need to demonstrate that - scientifically.
HBD
Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
