Re: "Randomness" in different branches of science
Jan de Koning (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 13:02:56 -0500
At 02:03 PM 23/02/98 -0500, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>It seems to me that the evolutionary biologists assume a picture and want to
>fit the data to it. I have no qualms with that. But do not tell me that the
>original picture is fact. Again I say that it is very doubtful for the
>evolutionary biologist to ever get to describe their subject matter in the
>mathematical depth that governs the notion of theories in physics.
"Theories in physics" are not all that sure either. Using probality theory
etc. you can do a lot, but still when you try to get deeper you end up with
contradictions. Is it a wave? Or, is it a particle? Same with evolution.
Many, even Young Earth Creationists, will say that there has been
evolution, so that makes the fitting for anti-evolutionists just as difficult.
Jan de Koning