Re: >Re: >RE: What does ID mean?
George Murphy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 26 Apr 1998 13:23:18 -0400
Glenn Morton wrote:
> At 04:27 PM 4/25/98, Moorad Alexanian wrote:
> >Let us not confuse how God upholds the creation and the laws that we use to
> >describe parts of it, e.g. solar system. The former we know nothing about.
> >The latter are just humanly created models, viz. toys, which are useful to
> >get us from one place of the solar system to another. Remember the map of a
> >city which is never the real city. Our toy model of the solar system is not
> >the real thing.
> Let me ask what the deficit is in a GR description of the solar system?
> Considering that GR is probably the most accurately verified theory as far
> as predictions are concerned, exactly what is the evidence that it doesn't
> fit reality? Is there empirical mis-fits between GR and observation?
As a general relativist I have to confess that the theory isn't
confirmed with the number of experiments/observations as, e.g., QED.
But it agrees with all the relevant observations made so far.
But Glenn's general point is right. It seems rather odd to
suggest that the fit of a well confirmed mathematical theory like GRT or
QED with observation is just an accident which has nothing to do with
the way God runs things. The successes of mathematicalal physics
strongly suggest that there is a pattern to the interactions which
comprise the physical world, and that our laws of physics are
approximations to that pattern.
George L. Murphy