Re: Letter to the Editor

Moorad Alexanian (alexanian@UNCWIL.EDU)
Fri, 05 Jun 1998 15:51:47 -0500 (EST)

At 02:59 PM 6/4/98 -0400, Ed Brayton wrote:
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> Letter which appeared 6/4/98 in the Raleigh News and Observer
>> Letter: Bork has it right
>> Stephen Gould, in his May 31 Op-ed article "It's only science: Darwin can't
>> evolve into a politician," quoted Robert Bork simply to attack his
>> conservative political views. Bork says that "science has left atheism as
>> the only respectable intellectual stance." This is a truism since by
>> "science" Bork means the philosophical position that the totality of the
>> human experience can be accounted for by means of matter/energy at the
>> exclusion of the supernatural.
>Though I don't care much for Gould's politics, I certainly don't have a
>problem with Gould attacking Bork's politics. Bork is a frightening man,
>and it appalls me that he was so close to being on the Supreme Court. I
>have never understood why even his opponents always described him as a
>"brilliant constitutional scholar"; even a cursory look at his law
>journal writings makes it clear that his legal reasoning is at about a
>3rd grade level (evidenced by the fact that my 4th grade son figured out
>the flaw in one of his more absurd legal ideas).

I have read Bork's "Slouching Towards Gomorrah," watched his confirmation
Hearings and I am very much impressed with him. I must also have the
reasoning ability of a 3rd grader. I advise you to immediately send your kid
to Harvard Law School.

>> Unlike physics, paleontology is a science in the sense of forensic science.
>> The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from apelike ancestors is
>> not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has
>> occurred. The overwhelming numbers of Americans still believe in a Creator.
>Is "beyond a reasonable doubt" the correct standard by which to judge a
>scientific theory? Should we apply legal standards to scienc

I do not consider evolutionary theory a scientific theory. Ordinary people
do not have to be scientists to understand what is being said by
evolutionists. It is not like, say, general relativity where ordinary people
have to take the scientist's word by faith.

>> Evolutionary theory is not a theory in the same sense as Einstein's
>> gravitational theory where there is an underlying mathematical model with
>> predicative power.
>Nor does the Germ Theory of Disease have an "underlying mathematical
>model". And the theory itself has predictive power with evolution.

We do not have to have a mathematical model to understand something. I love
my wife and have no mathematical model for all that takes place. However,
the main purpose of a scientific theory, besides explanation, is predictive
power. There may be an underlying mathematical model for germ theory--how
the number changes with time, etc. But there is no theory on how apes become

Take care,