I disagree. One of the most important foundations of science is the principal of causality; without it, there is no science. Since the universe clearly 'obeys' the this principal, and does so reliably and predictably, it must be logically ordered. For something to be predictable, it must have an internal, logical consistency.
I agree that the universe is ordered, and obeys that order, but I don't see it as necessary to conduct science. Science is a method to understand the universe. If the universe was not ordered we could still do science, it might be completely useless or worse, but we could still do it - assuming that we could still do experiments under a non-ordered universe.
God's command to man to 'subdue' the earth and its creatures is a command to bring the creation under his control and to rule it wisely and exercise responsible stewardship of it. This cannot be done without an understanding and manipulation of nature. The accumulation of this understanding and exercise of manipulation is science.
I can see it as a good motivation to do science when you put it that way. Since you devoted a whole post to this I'll respond in full to that post.
I don't deny Greece and Rome had a hand in laying the foundations of science, but that contribution was limited by the paradigm of Greek science. Before 'modern' science took off, Aristotle was the authority. Much of the 'science' of that period was measured as to its adherence to Aristotilean principles. The problem was that Aristotle's approach to investigating nature was that he didn't so much investigate, but rather contemplated it from afar; he took a rational one as opposed to an empirical one. Thus, he saw animals as imperfect expressions of an abstract, perfect 'form'; a horse was an expression of the 'Horse Form', and example of 'horseness'. Certain things were regarded as perfect expressions of some abstract principal. For instance, a circle was regarded as the 'perfect shape'.
I see the most hindering part of Greek thought to science coming from this 'contemplation, not evidence/experiments' mind set. But Greece wasn't without all experimentation. They calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun, the circumference of the Earth, and only rejected the heliocentric model because they could not see any parallax in the stars. They kept incredibly good records of the sky; they knew about the precession of Earth's axis every 26,000 years.
This led directly to difficulties in astronomy. Since circles were perfect, and planets appeared to move in a circle, it was reasoned that they must move in perfect circles. When calculations based on this principle didn't pan out, epicycles upon epicycles were added to the Ptolemy's system to reconcile it with observations. It wasn't until Copernicus was willing to consider elliptical orbits that things fell into place. Likewise Aristotilean science dictated that heavy objects fall at a faster rate that lighter ones. This was 'consensus science' until the time of Galileo when it was proven false. Aristotle's and his followers apparently never bothered to actually test ideas through observations, the very essence of 'doing science'. It wasn't Aristotle's purely rational approach to science was jettisoned in favor of an empirical one that 'modern science' was launched.
Um, Copernicus didn't come up with elliptical orbits, that was Kepler. Copernicus' model actually had more epicycles than Ptolemy's. Not to mention the Catholic Church, as well as Luther (from the protestant reformation), at the time frowned upon Copernicus' writings as heretical, and against scripture.
I'm not saying that the Greeks were doing modern science; they were not. I'm saying that the Greeks laid the foundation, which the Romans continued, which the Islamic empire continued until the European Renaissance, and eventually the scientific revolution.
Then why didn't it happen before Christianity became the dominant cultural influence in Europe?
I could ask you why didn't it happen soon after Christianity became the dominant cultural influence in Europe? Why spend nearly a thousand years in the dark and middle ages? The Church had real authority starting around the 5th and 6th century. Why was it that Islam, and not Christianity, became the forefront in science and technology? Many historians contend that the Renaissance was able to happen when it did because of what was left of the Greek and Roman civilizations, not because of Christianity creating a foundation for modern scientific principles.
I think you misunderstand Christianity's influence on science. It wasn't just that it provided (for whatever reason) a cultural environment amenable to science; it provided the philosophical foundation and justification for it. A house cannot be removed from its foundation without serious consequences.
That foundation ultimately comes from the Greeks, not Christianity. I have seen very little that would indicate that Christianity was instrumental to modern science, and in many cases the exact opposite.
The current paradigm of strict naturalism crosses the same line; why should this philosophical framework be preferred over another? Science always entails philosophy, it's just a matter of whose philosophy.
I really don't see that line being crossed by science. Science depends on methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. As to why methodological naturalism is preferred over others, it quite simply just works the best in explaining how the natural world works. You don't have to be an atheist to do well in science today, there are many scientists (about 40-50%) that self identify themselves as religious, most of them are Christian.
Although I do see that some people, like Myers and Dawkins, who would love to see religion purged from not only science, but the world. If you are referring to these, and other like minded individuals, I am with you. I truly believe that religion should be of the individual; it is everyone's innate right to choose what religion they want to believe if any at all (provided they don't harm anyone). For all the amoral things people have done in the name of religion, I still see it as a net positive force in the world.
Actually, radioactive decay rates have been shown to vary with respect to the earth's distance from the sun, chemical environment and otherwise.. These variations are nowhere near the magnitude required to reconcile conventional dating with YEC, but decay rates aren't as inviolable as some would have you believe.
First, thank you for being honest. The most fascinating, and most detrimental to conventional thinking, IMHO, is that decay rates seem to change as distance to the Sun changes. As seen with the first and second links, but I didn't see any numbers, so it is hard to say how influential such variables are. With the third paper I actually learned about electron capturing!
Unfortunately, they were only able to make a 1.5% range, which seems very consistent with contemporary measurements. It is like saying the age of this rock isn't 65 million years, but rather 64 or 66 million years. While I don't know a lot about radiometric dating, I do know that they don't get one specific date, but a range, and 1.5% seems very consistent with that.
The last paper strikes me as the most unnerving. I just skimmed it, but I did read/skim both what little was left on the other articles before and after it. The article before states that we determined the age of the Sun through meteorites. I know this is simply not true, it is done by the amount of hydrogen and helium in the Sun; as the Sun is powered by fusion of H to He. The paper after it concludes that dinosaurs were circular reasoned into extinction 65 million years ago. And to show this provided an example where they dated some tracts to the cretaceous period, but then reanalyzed the tracts and came up with early tertiary. This type of embellishment is similar to the 1.5% range of nuclear decay rates discussed in the third paper. Early tertiary is right after the K-T boundary, it is the difference between 66 million years and 64 million years. Such ranges are not detrimental to main-stream science; and finding remote, isolated, dinosaur tracts (I know the paper also said those tracts turned out to be mammalian) after the K-T boundary (which they have found, fyi) do not destroy the millions/billions years framework, nor does it destroy the theory of evolution via common decent.
I don't mean to dilute the original paper you wanted me to read, but just skimming on what little bit I do know about the previous and subsequent papers are not reassuring. As to the paper in question, if those results are genuine, they are free to do the experiment over and over, and if they and other creation scientists get the same results they are free to publish their results in a peer reviewed paper accepted by the scientific community. I'm not saying that they will get acceptance, or the paper will go through, but if it is all true, maybe some scientist on the other side will conduct the same experiment and find the same answer. And if that happens, I would think the flood gates would open up, and people would be more open such ideas.
I'm fairly sure that igneous (volcanic) rock is subject to leaching by hydrothermal fluids even after solidification. I'll have to look it up to be sure. In any case, it's on such basis that 'anomalous' dates are discarded. I'll see if I can dig up some examples.
I don't really know enough to push the idea, but I don't have a problem with igneous rocks being leached by hydrothermal fluids after formation as far as I know.
Well, this is the heart of the debate - regarding RATE anyway. It wasn't just anomalies they found, the discovered systematic differences. For instance, dates given by alpha decay always gave older dates that those given by beta decay. Likewise, the longer the half-life of a mineral, the older the radiometric age. Humpreys' helium data was not only dead-on his prediction, but would be exactly what would be found if accelerated decay had happened: billions of years worth of decay and nearly all of the decay product (helium) still there. But that's all for another thread.
I didn't realize that RATE found systematic differences. Although I wonder if those differences are that of 1.5%, or on the factor of millions of folds higher than standard decay rates.