Sep 28, 2016 | Bible, Biblical Literalism, Creationism, Evolution, Fundamentalism, Historical Science, Inerrancy, Ken Ham, Observational Science, Patrick Thomas, Righting America, Science, Young Earth Creationism |
by Patrick Thomas Patrick Thomas reflects upon the contributions of our colleagues from the natural sciences from our recent series, Putting Observational Science to the Test. In his book The Lie, Ken Ham delineates the differences between “observational” and...
Sep 16, 2016 | Answers in Genesis, Creationism, Evolution, Historical Science, Ken Ham, Mark Masthay, Observational Science, Science, Young Earth Creationism |
by Mark Masthay For his third post, Dr. Mark Masthay uses the historical example of the “Phlogiston Hypothesis” to discuss how scientists negotiate the meaning of scientific discoveries. In doing so, he provides a very generous proposition for unifying...
Sep 13, 2016 | Answers in Genesis, Historical Science, Ken Ham, Mark Masthay, Observational Science, Science |
by Mark Masthay Continuing from his earlier post examining observational science and certitude, this week Dr. Mark Masthay clarifies the epistemic differences between observational science and his own chemistry lab for achieving scientific certainty. Because I do not...
Sep 2, 2016 | Answers in Genesis, Historical Science, Ken Ham, Observational Science, Robert Brecha, Science |
by Robert Brecha The second entry of our Putting Observational Science to the Test series comes from Dr. Robert Brecha, Professor of Physics and Research Director for the Hanley Sustainability Institute at the University of Dayton. In this post, Robert questions...
Aug 30, 2016 | Allen McGrew, Answers in Genesis, Historical Science, Ken Ham, Observational Science, Science, Young Earth Creationism |
by Allen McGrew Kicking off our Putting Observational Science to the Test series, Dr. Allen McGrew, Associate Professor of Geology at the University of Dayton, provides some insights on Ken Ham’s distinction between “observational” and...
