Cleland’s case for historical science: part 1 – creation.com

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

Before uniformitarian geology derailed biblical history, the rails were greased by an unwarranted confidence in scientific history. What is the relationship between science, history, and truth? Carol Cleland, a leading philosopher of science, attempts an answer. Reacting to critics who claim historical science is less valid than experimental science, she defends their epistemic equality with both negative and positive arguments. Her negative argument highlights flaws in both the theory and practice of experimental science. Although her arguments ably undermine some modern distortions, her case against experimental science in this paper relies on the straw man of positivism—the idea that science is the arbiter of truth—and is thus less robust than a traditional Christian understanding of the relationship between science and revelation.


Carol Cleland points out limits and weaknesses of experimental science, but misses the biblical foundation needed for both science and history.

 

Read More: Cleland’s case for historical science: part 1 – creation.com

  • Rating:
  • Views:543 views
  • Categories: General