Useful, thank you!…

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Scientia emprica (science emprical) [found in a few writings]

Scientia primordia (Scince Beginnings) [not found in any writings]

i should mention, one creationist journal also used latin, it was Ex Nihilo

There is simply no way to have empirical-only investigations of origins.

That’s a good criticism, so some clarification is in order by me.

At some point theoretical hypotheses ought to be confirmed or disconfirmed by empirical observations. Theoretical works will be sought after, but it would be in the interest of the proposal to have suggestions as to how it further advances empirical inquiry.

For example, something like Dembski’s math would be foundational to future empirical inquries. We do a great service to theoretical ideas by finding empirical application of them.

If someone other than ourselves starts such a journal, all the better, and less effort for me. But I think it’s something that should be done for the benefit of creation science.

My view, is the community as a whole has little to lose by trying.

I would welcome information and ideas on how journals are financed and staffed.

Salvador

The one thing we will have trouble in starting a journal together is that I don’t think what you are attempting is possible. There is simply no way to have empirical-only investigations of origins.

Question –

If the C14 dating of an artifact conflicts with all known testimonies to the creation of an object, would it be valid to question the C14 dating on the basis of historical testimonies? If so, then you are merely disallowing a single testimony on a priori grounds. If not, I would have further difficulties with your epistemology.

I think a more important rule is to be honest with what the data says. If you are working under paradigm X, that’s fine, even if the data is contradictory. The need is to be able to self-criticize and be honest with what the data is telling you.

Have you read Feyerabend? I highly suggest “Against Method” and “For and Against Method”.

As a quick example, in the previous BSG conference I gave a hypothesis for the existence of a heuristic-driven mechanism in creating the non-templated portions of antibody genes (large parts of antibody genes come from templates, but there are regions which join these templates together which are not templated in DNA). While I could have given the presentation without respect to God, the fact is that the assumption that “man is created in God’s image” is fundamental to the reasoning I used to formulate my hypothesis. While I could have left it out, that would be a serious impediment to scientificf research (assuming my hypothesis is true, which I have not had resources to test), as the report would be missing the fundamental heuristic I used to generate that hypothesis! If man were not created in the image of God, I would have had no reason to look for design patterns similar to man-made ones within the genome.

How about something like “Journal of Empirical Origins Science?”