Re: "Randomness" in different branches of science
Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:42:23 -0500 (EST)
At 01:02 PM 2/24/98 -0500, Jan de Koning wrote:
>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
Theories in physics violate our common sense which is based on our
classically thinking minds. Theories in physics rely on mathematical models
which give precise answers to well-posed questions. The latter is all that
one can expect from a theory.