Full Article Title
Addresses of All Authors
Cedarville University 251 N. Main St. Cedarville, OH 45314
Dr. Gollmer has served on the faculty of Cedarville University since 1994. With degrees in physics and atmospheric science he enjoys an inter-disciplinary approach to research. This has led to such diverse subjects as systems biology, climate modeling and origins studies. Preferring computer analysis over field work he has experience using Monte Carlo simulations and analyzing large data sets. Dr. Gollmer is a member of the Creation Research Society, Creation Biology Society, American Geophysical Union and the American Association of Physics Teachers.
Historically, physics was the most quantitative of the sciences. Geologists and biologists built their models based on observation, categorization and generalization. This distinction between qualitative and quantitative sciences prompted the quote attributed to Ernest Rutherford that “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” In the intervening 80 years all sciences have exploded in the use of quantitative measures to find patterns and trends in data. A review of a half-century of creationist literature shows that this transition has not been lost to the creationist community.
As this trend continues to accelerate, two areas of caution need to be taken seriously: 1) the use of properly validated techniques and 2) evaluating the role of assumptions in the development of models. In addition, advancements in machine learning tend to blur the lines between human insight and computational power. With a proper understanding of the nature of man, creation scientists are well suited to evaluate the unique role human investigators play in the choice, guidance and interpretation of that which is processed by the machine.
Computer Sciences | Philosophy
Machine learning, Data Science, Computational Methods, Model building, Creation Science, Presuppositions
Gollmer, S.M. 2018. Man, machine, scientific models and creation science. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 103–116. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.