Re: What does ID mean?

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 24 Apr 1998 09:36:32 -0500 (EST)

At 07:33 PM 4/23/98 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
>Hi Moorad,
>At 12:02 PM 4/23/98, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>>Mathematical models in meteorology make short term predications, days rather
>>than weeks. As such weather models with probabilistic predications
>>constitutes a science. Evolution is in a boat of its own named the Titanic.
>it seems to me that the Mayor of Moscow was so 'impressed' with the short
>term prediction of his country's weathermen that he threatened to start his
>own meteorology service. Obviously my point is that predictions can only be
>made for SIMPLE systems. Life is anything but simple. Can you predict when,
>exactly when, a star will go supernova? SN1987a was not even the type of
>star that they thought would explode, yet it did.

Dear Glenn,

That is the essence of my argument. Since life is anything but simple we
delude ourselves into thinking that we can eventually explain all of it with
"science." That is why one must really delve in the assumptions being made
so that one is not fooled.

I have always said that unique events are outside of the purview of
science--science in the sense of physics. Cosmology is the only case in
physics which is different.

We can make statistical predictions of the life of stars and presumably we
do not fully understand what is really happening out there. I think of
evolutionary theory as forensic science. But when you get to the deep
philosophical assumptions being made, one realizes that some scientists
annihilate all forms of knowledge and reduce everything to science. That can
result in bad science not to say a confused human being.

Take care,