Not exact matches
That's
just honest
observational science either evolutionist or creationist can determine from the same data... or lack of / inaccurate as it may be.
Just as it is important, in order to do justice to the praxis of reason operative in the empirical
sciences, to complement their
observational and explanatory heuristics with hermeneutical and historical analyses, so it is important, in order to do justice to the praxis of reason operative in hermeneutics and historical reconstructions, to complement their interpretive and reconstructive heuristics with dialectics (BOR 150ff, TW 117ff.).
It's not rocket
science although as usual the biases introduced by mans assumptions are often harder to model than simple
observational trends, they
just create noise around definite natural trends.
Otherwise I don't know what the difference is either, because
science doesn't obey labeling and I am
just following the
observational data.
My final point here is that I am 100 % in favor of this approach (not
just in this field, but in
observational science generally), and am in fact convinced that only via systematically conducteed simulations of realistic tree ring data sets can methodological problems be identified (and potentially corrected).