Re: NABT Statement - unpredictable science
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Mon, 20 Oct 1997 14:41:56 -0500 (EST)
At 11:52 AM 10/20/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
>When the NABT set out to write their statement on Evolution, and more recently
>as they try to modify it, I'm sure they got a taste of what the Christian
>Councils have had to endure through centuries. Words may cut more than two
>ways. For example, the word "unpredictable" in the NABT statement is very
>1) "Process" gives the idea of "ordered" events and their repeatability.
>Evolution should not be regarded as a process in the naturalistic point of
>view (NABT's). We must object to the use of the word "process". Can history
>be defined in terms of processes?
>2) Science characterizes itself because it makes "predictions", but if
>evolution is "unpredictable", how can it also be science?
>NABT's statement needs to evolve some more.....................
Actually it is worse than you state. Evolution is akin to cosmology which is
a deductive rather than an inductive science. The main feature of a
deductive science like cosmology is that its legitimacy comes from the
specific cosmological models one can device which can make predications that
can be compared with nature. Witness the predication of Gamow et al. on the
remanent radiation left over from the Big Bang. Also, all the evolutionary
cosmologies that follow from the Robertson-Walker metric, the Friedmann
models. No such mathematical models exist in evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory is nothing but mere words with no mathematical models to
make any deductions whatsoever!! It can never be like physics unless it gets
to the level of the genes.