Re: Testing in historical science

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Sun, 16 Nov 1997 16:24:21 -0500 (EST)

At 09:38 PM 11/15/97 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> However, theories in physics make specific predictions. I ask you, does an
>> evolutionist have a theory which predicts why I have two eyes? Or else, how
>> many millions years will it take for us car drivers to develop an eye behind
>> our heads to make backing a car easier?
> & we don't have theories of celestial mechanics detailed enough
>to tell us why the solar system has 9 planets. But that doesn't mean
>that they were designed in some way that bypassed the laws of physics.
>The contingency of evolutionary process, physical or biological, cannot
>be ignored.
> George Murphy

Newton's theoretical efforts where done to study celestial mechanics and in
so doing unified it with terrestrial mechanics. Of course, there are
scientists who no doubt are studying the origin of planets. I am sure if you
know how a planet came into being, then the question of how many are
associated with a particular sun would be much easier to answer. Physicists
know the distinction between these different studies and hope that it can
all be brought under one umbrella some day. However, evolutionists claim to
have answers for the evolution of the eye, for instance. Therefore, such a
theory of how the eye came to be would easily explain why we have two eyes.
The claims made by evolutionists seem to me always to be overly exaggerated.
In fact, it is so presented and fought for that one would think that one is
dealing with a religion and not a scientific theory. Perhaps some of you who
are also devote Christians are not like that, but the majority are, I
believe, as I have indicated. In fact, in physics we use the term
"phenomenology" to describe a set of ideas that provides explanations in a
not-to-rigorous fashion. But phenomenology never qualified as a full-fledged
theory. I believe that evolutionary ideas are, at best, phenomenology.