Re: >Re: >RE: What does ID mean?

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 01 May 1998 13:06:30 -0500 (EST)

At 01:23 PM 4/26/98 -0400, George Murphy wrote:
>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

Dear George,

The point I am making is that God is not bound to the laws that we use to
describe nature.

Take care,