Re: Limits of Kinds (was Fall of evolved man)

Glenn Morton (
Sun, 09 Nov 1997 03:01:10 -0600

At 11:42 AM 11/9/97, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>I do not doubt that you have many pieces of many puzzles on your hand. But
>you must discern the pieces according to which puzzle you think they belong
>to. Such are the assumptions that have to be used otherwise one cannot make
>any sense of the data. Perhaps that for some of the puzzles there are only a
>few pieces available which makes it hard to determine the message of the

so I presume that this means that we ignore the conclusions we can draw from
the parts of the puzzle we do have and believe anything we want. If this is
true, then I chose to believe that there is a billion dollars in my bank
account. Where is the Dallas area Lamborgine dealer? :-)

>I suppose it is my prejudice and ignorance that may give rise to the doubts
>I have about evolutionary theory. Physics is very much more restrictive in
>allowing speculations than evolutionary theory.

I began as a physicist. While I was not at your level of expertise, I will
tell you that my transition to the geosciences taught me a few things about
my initial subject area. First, physics is restrictive because it deals with
simple systems. You may work with a ten dimensional manifold, but to
describe a delta system requires far more dimensions. Geology is very, very
complex. To explain a delta requires knowledge of: grain-shape, specific
gravity, size distribution of the particles, mineralogy, water velocity,
rate of rain-fall, dissolved material, channel width, competency of the beds
enclosing the channel, meandering rate (which is chaotic), dip of the river
bed, height of the water, nature of the plant material along the stream,
height of the levees,...

As you can see it is more complex than the most difficult manifolds you work
with. Each of the above is a variable with its own dimensional axis.

>There are areas of physics
>which are very speculative, string theory, cosmology, that is, those areas
>where there are no results from experiments. However, as a physicist I know
>when a theory in physics is mere speculations and deals with behaviors far
>away from experimental data. However, it seems to me that in evolutionary
>theory speculations are the norm. Perhaps if I delved in the areas you
>mentioned I may be converted. You must know that I was never exposed in
>school to evolutionary theories. What I know I learned as an adult and I
>have read a lot.

I will tell you this. When I went to work as a geophysicist, I was appalled
that everything young-earth, antievolutionary christians had ever said about
geology turned out to be wrong. I suspect that you are coming from a similar
theological background to what I came from.

I will say this. I read a lot as a young-earth creationist also. Looking
back on my experience, I now realize that I read with the intent of proving
my position correct. That is not the way one should approach a topic. We
should read with the goal of finding the truth.


Foundation, Fall and Flood